Buh-bye, seniors

Poll

184 votes were received.
All visitors can vote.

Well?

	Achieved
	Underachieved

---

See ya, seniors. What a way to go out. Blah.

And see the rest of you in 7 months, for Cornell's rebuilding season.

I think the Senior class achieved...

I think this is a little classless. Kick a guy when he is down.

Towerroad
I think this is a little classless. Kick a guy when he is down.

Let's not bash the players. Bash the coach! the system! This is the 3rd time Cornell's been beat in the tournament by Umile, because Umile knows how to coach these guys up to break the gimmick Cornell defensive system. He makes it look easy, and he makes Schafer look stupid.

Towerroad
I think this is a little classless.

In other words, the truth hurts.

No, I think it is about respect for the players. I operate under the assumption that they gave the program all that they could. The went out to compete and tonight their best was not good enough. On another day it might be but I think we should respect our fellow Cornellians. This was the Seniors last game and I think we should say "Thank You" not "What have you done for me lately".

I have think that the efforts of the Coach should come under a bit more scrutiny as he and his staff are paid professionals.

It's not about the players at all. It's just our style. The critics out there have always been right, I've just not wanted to admit it. But now I should admit it - I'm just bored with the way we play hockey. I enjoy rooting for the team and following the scores on elynah and USCHO, but I don't really care whether I get to a game or not. The fun of following the game on elynah chat or the forum far exceeds actually watching the team play. I guess I'm a true cyber fan and that's a sad thing.

Redscore
It's not about the players at all. It's just our style. The critics out there have always been right, I've just not wanted to admit it. But now I should admit it - I'm just bored with the way we play hockey. I enjoy rooting for the team and following the scores on elynah and USCHO, but I don't really care whether I get to a game or not. The fun of following the game on elynah chat or the forum far exceeds actually watching the team play. I guess I'm a true cyber fan and that's a sad thing.

I never liked seeing games much. It's not fun to watch. Most hockey is, but I really believe that the way Cornell plays is bad for the game. If everyone played like that, no one would watch college hockey or hockey in general. The reason the NHL is so fun to watch now, even though it has yet to attract the viewers (more related to post-lockout issues than anything else, in my opinion), is that they changed the rules so the New Jersey Devils' style didn't dominate the sport. Now it's actually watchable.

Schafer is GAMING the system, CHANGE THE RULES COLLEGE HOCKEY before the game is ruined!!

YankeeLobo

Towerroad
I think this is a little classless. Kick a guy when he is down.

Let's not bash the players. Bash the coach! the system! This is the 3rd time Cornell's been beat in the tournament by Umile, because Umile knows how to coach these guys up to break the gimmick Cornell defensive system. He makes it look easy, and he makes Schafer look stupid.

If it's just a coaching thing, how'd we win 5-2 against them earlier in the year?

Kyle Rose
See ya, seniors. What a way to go out. Blah.

And see the rest of you in 7 months, for Cornell's rebuilding season.

I agree with the comments on the Schafer System. It is the snarky tone dissing the Seniors that I object to.

I think this year's team underachieved slightly, but only slightly - they probably should have made the regional final, all things considered, and even without the favorable draw they had the potential to get to the frozen four, but expecting another FF was at best wishful thinking. Just because we went into this season knowing that this was Cornell's best shot at a national title since 2003 doesn't mean Cornell actually had a great shot at a national title.

I don't think the seniors have underachieved at all. Greening developed into an absolute monster and will probably end up in the AHL next year, Gallagher improved tremendously over his time here and developed into a legitimate goal-scoring threat, Scali became a force in the corners, and Krueger ended his career as a terrific, steady defenseman. A lot of people like to bag on Brendon Nash, but Cornell will miss him terribly next season. Scrivens actually exceeded my expectations with his career improvement. I remember watching him play as a freshman, and believe me - he's been much better as a senior. That degree of improvement, and the quality of his performances are a credit to him. I don't care how good the defensive system is, you don't set shutout records at this level without being consistently good unless you play for an utterly, ridiculously, historically dominant team.

Best of luck to the seniors.

Dafatone

YankeeLobo

Towerroad
I think this is a little classless. Kick a guy when he is down.

Let's not bash the players. Bash the coach! the system! This is the 3rd time Cornell's been beat in the tournament by Umile, because Umile knows how to coach these guys up to break the gimmick Cornell defensive system. He makes it look easy, and he makes Schafer look stupid.

If it's just a coaching thing, how'd we win 5-2 against them earlier in the year?

Probably cause we played a great game that night and UNH was off...might've had an excuse. In the tournament there are no excuses. that's the only game that mattered of the two. Umile obviously made the adjustments, Schafer didn't. I felt like the team panicked early in the third period and started taking chances they didn't have to, or were not equipped to take. its pretty clear they panicked from an offensive standpoint, feeling like they needed to tie it up quickly. that's the problem with schafer's system, all the players start thinking defensively. when there comes a point in the game when they actually need a goal, and they shift their strategy, they're not good at it, hence why UNH dominated us in the 3rd period. cornell can't play open hockey, period.

this is fundamentally uncool and goes against everything i've come to hold myself to as a Cornell Hockey fan. You should really be ashamed of yourself for starting a thread like this on ELYNAH where Cornell Hockey FANS come to discuss hockey, not knock down our players. While we all may have been discouraged by the game, this is a slap in the face to a group of men who have given their time and energy to us for the past 4 years.

hockeychick470
this is fundamentally uncool and goes against everything i've come to hold myself to as a Cornell Hockey fan. You should really be ashamed of yourself for starting a thread like this on ELYNAH where Cornell Hockey FANS come to discuss hockey, not knock down our players. While we all may have been discouraged by the game, this is a slap in the face to a group of men who have given their time and energy to us for the past 4 years.

thumbs up x a million

Why is that when a team has a bad night, it was the coach's fault for not coaching them properly? In this game, I think they just didn't play well. Period.

Underachieved? Are you kidding me. ECAC championship and underachieved? What's wrong with you people? And coach Schafer? He has 4 of these in 12 years or so? Dear god you people have high standards.

And I am not of the belief that you need scoring to make it exciting. Schafer's system is exciting to me. I love how our players line up defensively to form a near (Maybe not so much for UNH but most of the time) impenetrable fortress of blockers. This is ten billion times more interesting than watching a bunch of players storm the goal line in haphazard fashion. Go watch the NHL if you want scoring and leave college hockey to those of us that prefer strategy in their sports.

adamw
Why is that when a team has a bad night, it was the coach's fault for not coaching them properly? In this game, I think they just didn't play well. Period.

Yeah, I don't blame Schafer for this: his system works incredibly well at producing world-class teams from relatively (and I emphasize "relatively" ) mediocre talent. The failure tonight was the players', plain and simple. I wish they had played like this was their last game, because for many of them... it was.

I'm sorry some of you question my fandom, but blind devotion is dildonic. Wake up and smell the pesticide on the green: this team underperformed expectations relative to their talent and prior achievements. If you can't accept that... oh, well. I am mourning the fact that I will not see Greening, Gallagher, Krueger, Scali, Scrivens, B. Nash (or, likely, R. Nash) don the uniform again, with THIS shitty performance as the way they went out. It's just sad.

This is so stupid. As an undergrad I suffered and I mean suffered through the end of the McCutcheon era, that was much more fun than this I can say. I saw that in person and in living color. Coach is tremendous, that is not blind devotion it is fact. Cornell will never have the talent that WCHA, CCHA or Hockey East teams have, that is the landscape we live in at present. In that landscape he molds teams that should be the pride of us all, hard working, selfless, tough, giving up their bodies for the greater good and instead we kill these guys and the coaches because they played badly for one night against an opponent who won the Hockey East regular season. Glad we are not Denver fans or coach might be shot at sunrise...

Just an aside, Umile is killed up here for never winning the big one. He has be my count had the best or close to the best team in tournement at least four times and has never won the final game. There are parts of the fandome of Wildcat Nation (of which I have season tickets) who want this guy fired. I have a great idea, lets swap coaches. I guarntee that UNH with Mike would win a National Championship before Cornell with Dick.

Get of your pitty wagons and see this for what it is. An ECAC championship season and one bad game at the end. Am I sad, yes...angry at the effort, yes...but to suggest that Coach and this system does not work is wrong.

Winning an ECAC title and getting into the NCAAs is a superb year!!! IMO, this team played great hockey week in and week out. They did this all while dealing with the challenges of an undergraduate workload at Cornell!
The coach has his system. His success compared to his peers reinforces this style (4 ECAC titles in 10 years).
I was as dissappointed as any other alum with last night's result but not with the effort. Unfortuately, in a single elimination tournament the results don't always favor the better team, just the better team that night.
Looking forward to next year.
Matt

MattShaf
Winning an ECAC title and getting into the NCAAs is a superb year!!!

Since evidently I am not getting through to people, my point isn't that Cornell '10 was an objectively bad team: they weren't. My point was that this was supposed to be the year that brought us back to the highs of '03 and would give us a long run in the NCAA tournament. Instead, they folded like a cheap suit last night. They didn't lose a one goal, back-and-forth game: they got beat and looked bad in the process. Not what I expected from this team last off-season, but certainly what I came to expect following their night-to-night inconsistency throughout the season.

IMO, this team played great hockey week in and week out.

Which team were you watching?

They did this all while dealing with the challenges of an undergraduate workload at Cornell!

And now with Less Fairy Dust!™ Seriously, I don't think anyone contests that the life of a Cornell hockey player is a bitch or that they don't have hurdles to overcome that other national contenders lack by virtue of funding, scholarships, majors-for-jocks, etc. This is, again, not my point. So I can avoid repeating myself, read the first paragraph again.

I was as dissappointed as any other alum with last night's result but not with the effort.

Which game were you watching?

Unfortuately, in a single elimination tournament the results don't always favor the better team, just the better team that night.

(edited b/c I was talking past you.) Again, which team were you watching? Cornell was inconsistent all season. It's not clear which was the better team overall.

I would bring to light a delightful point that made me feel better this morning after last night's bitter loss: Nobody on Harvard's current team has ever played in the NCAA tournament. And nobody on next year's Harvard team will have either. No matter what happened to our team, at least we aren't them.

gored
I would bring to light a delightful point that made me feel better this morning after last night's bitter loss: Nobody on Harvard's current team has ever played in the NCAA tournament. And nobody on next year's Harvard team will have either. No matter what happened to our team, at least we aren't them.

Because, when you can't have success, you can at least have schadenfreude. I'll toast to that.

Kyle Rose
My point was that this was supposed to be the year that brought us back to the highs of '03 and would give us a long run in the NCAA tournament.

Kyle, I think maybe your expectations are a bit too high. 2003 was Cornell's best year in possibly 30 years. It doesn't happen very often and it's unfair to rate the current team to that level.

Also of note - Cornell was, once again, the best team in the tournament to not offer scholarships. We win that pseudo title year in and year out.

kaelistus
Kyle, I think maybe your expectations are a bit too high. 2003 was Cornell's best year in possibly 30 years. It doesn't happen very often and it's unfair to rate the current team to that level.

As I said earlier, this team wasn't even as good as 2005 or 2006, despite having more talent. If they were second-best to 2003, you may have had a point here, but that wasn't the case.

Also of note - Cornell was, once again, the best team in the tournament to not offer scholarships. We win that pseudo title year in and year out.

You have asserted something not yet in evidence: Yale doesn't play until later today. For reference, how many times in a row has Cornell lost to them again?

kaelistus

Kyle Rose
My point was that this was supposed to be the year that brought us back to the highs of '03 and would give us a long run in the NCAA tournament.

Kyle, I think maybe your expectations are a bit too high. 2003 was Cornell's best year in possibly 30 years. It doesn't happen very often and it's unfair to rate the current team to that level.

Also of note - Cornell was, once again, the best team in the tournament to not offer scholarships. We win that pseudo title year in and year out.

It might just be, because of the lack of scholarships (among Ivies) or some other factor, that the ECAC just isn't very good. That's a shame. We've been the best team in the ECAC, overall, over the past decade. That's impressive.

Yeah, yesterday hurt. A lot. And I was hoping this team could do more. But that's the thing about single elimination tournaments. Either it's all "our coach sucks! we suck!" etc, or we just didn't have it one day. If UNH can have a bad game to the tune of losing to us 5-2, we can do the same.

What is wrong with you people? They're trolls.

It's the same guys who did this last year- start a bunch of accounts, argue with yourself, start a flamestorm.

Hi, Simon.

Kyle Rose

kaelistus
Kyle, I think maybe your expectations are a bit too high. 2003 was Cornell's best year in possibly 30 years. It doesn't happen very often and it's unfair to rate the current team to that level.

As I said earlier, this team wasn't even as good as 2005 or 2006, despite having more talent. If they were second-best to 2003, you may have had a point here, but that wasn't the case.

To argue about 2005, remember that the major reason we stayed with Minny was 37 vs. 17 saves, and we only got by OSU because of 34 vs. 17 saves. Certainly that's not the high powered offense that many are clamoring for, but if you want to say we got there by good defense and great goaltending I'd agree. That does go away from their argument, however.

2006 is an even worse comparison. Third in RS and losing to Harvard in the finals. We beat CC by limiting them to 23 shots, and then lost to W, being out shot 60 to 40. Again my above comment about style pertains. This years team compares favorably to both of those years and, in my mind, certainly had a more satisfying playoff run than 2006. I'd give up a 1-1 NCAA record to 0-1, for an ECAC Championship any year.

So I don't see how you can use those years as a comparison and say they were better. 2006 was no better and 2005 was debatable, but certainly more enjoyable.They were great years because of the Schafer system, with great goaltending. Without that spectacular goaltending we could easily be talking the same about them.

I think the difference is that we enjoyed 2005 & 2006 better, because we enjoyed the last game better than this year.

Jim Hyla
I think the difference is that we enjoyed 2005 & 2006 better, because we enjoyed the last game better than this year.

I think your points are fair, with no argument on this point, especially. The losses that ended 2005 and 2006 were tough but showed each team playing its best in games that could have gone either way: though losses, they gave me a good feeling to end the year on. Yesterday's loss did not: Cornell looked bad and certainly did not play its best.

Furthermore, to your point comparing 2006 to 2010, I'd say that the team performed better in 2006 against tougher competition (e.g., Wisconsin, which was the eventual national champion).

I'm not one of these guys that thinks Cornell needs to bring in lots of offensive talent and re-jigger its game to compete: I like the defense-first system, and it suits the kinds of players Schafer is able to bring in. But it needs to be executed well, and with consistency. 2005 and 2006 both ended with Cornell as a well-oiled defensive machine that just fell slightly short on the firepower. By comparison, 2010 ended with Cornell giving up five goals before answering with a second late in the 3rd while the UHN players were busy popping open the champagne on the bench. Yikes! I'll take a hundred 2006's before another 2010 from the standpoint of Cornell's performance in the big games.

This leads into your point about winning the ECAC championship. I'm very glad that Cornell won, and I had a great time in Albany (as usual), yadda yadda yadda... but they had the easiest road to an ECAC title that they've had in a long time. Brown and Backman eliminated the one opponent that would likely have beaten Cornell. Harvard? Brown? Union? Somehow the ECAC title doesn't seem so impressive given how Cornell got it. Again, I'm happy to have it, but this is not like winning in 2005, when Cornell wasn't clearly outclassing the other team on the ice in every game.

When I answered the poll, I wanted an option for "a little of both." Clearly the inconsistency of this team showed all season. When they did not show up, anybody could beat us, never mind a playoff caliber team like UHN.

But an ECAC championship is a tremendous achievement. Let's not belittle that. It's a shame that the seniors gould not have gone out on a more positive note, but that should not detract from what was a very good season.

I'm usually not one to be pollyanna-ish, but all in all, this was a damn good year.

Kyle Rose
Since evidently I am not getting through to people, my point isn't that Cornell '10 was an objectively bad team: they weren't. My point was that this was supposed to be the year that brought us back to the highs of '03 and would give us a long run in the NCAA tournament. Instead, they folded like a cheap suit last night. They didn't lose a one goal, back-and-forth game: they got beat and looked bad in the process. Not what I expected from this team last off-season, but certainly what I came to expect following their night-to-night inconsistency throughout the season.

The problem is - as I stated a couple of weeks ago in the thread Age started - is that .... I don't know what made people believe this was "the year" ... This team was never thought of, when taking off the Big Red-colored glasses, on the same par with the 2003 team. I personally never saw that. Any Cornell NCAA-caliber team CAN make the FF .... but in 2003, the Frozen Four was practically considered a given ... and if it didn't happen, it would've been devastating, because the chances are so few. Not in 2005, 2006 or 2010 did I think it was on that level. Yes, it stings, yes they certainly could've made the FF .... but they could also just as easily lose in the 1st round. In 05 06 and 09, Cornell won tough first-round games --- coming back from down 2-0 in each one of them .... This year, they lost it. It happens.

adamw

Kyle Rose
Since evidently I am not getting through to people, my point isn't that Cornell '10 was an objectively bad team: they weren't. My point was that this was supposed to be the year that brought us back to the highs of '03 and would give us a long run in the NCAA tournament. Instead, they folded like a cheap suit last night. They didn't lose a one goal, back-and-forth game: they got beat and looked bad in the process. Not what I expected from this team last off-season, but certainly what I came to expect following their night-to-night inconsistency throughout the season.

The problem is - as I stated a couple of weeks ago in the thread Age started - is that .... I don't know what made people believe this was "the year" ... This team was never thought of, when taking off the Big Red-colored glasses, on the same par with the 2003 team. I personally never saw that. Any Cornell NCAA-caliber team CAN make the FF .... but in 2003, the Frozen Four was practically considered a given ... and if it didn't happen, it would've been devastating, because the chances are so few. Not in 2005, 2006 or 2010 did I think it was on that level. Yes, it stings, yes they certainly could've made the FF .... but they could also just as easily lose in the 1st round. In 05 06 and 09, Cornell won tough first-round games --- coming back from down 2-0 in each one of them .... This year, they lost it. It happens.

Every one of Adam's posts since the final horn yesterday has been spot on.

adamw

Kyle Rose
Since evidently I am not getting through to people, my point isn't that Cornell '10 was an objectively bad team: they weren't. My point was that this was supposed to be the year that brought us back to the highs of '03 and would give us a long run in the NCAA tournament. Instead, they folded like a cheap suit last night. They didn't lose a one goal, back-and-forth game: they got beat and looked bad in the process. Not what I expected from this team last off-season, but certainly what I came to expect following their night-to-night inconsistency throughout the season.

The problem is - as I stated a couple of weeks ago in the thread Age started - is that .... I don't know what made people believe this was "the year" ... This team was never thought of, when taking off the Big Red-colored glasses, on the same par with the 2003 team. I personally never saw that. Any Cornell NCAA-caliber team CAN make the FF .... but in 2003, the Frozen Four was practically considered a given ... and if it didn't happen, it would've been devastating, because the chances are so few. Not in 2005, 2006 or 2010 did I think it was on that level. Yes, it stings, yes they certainly could've made the FF .... but they could also just as easily lose in the 1st round. In 05 06 and 09, Cornell won tough first-round games --- coming back from down 2-0 in each one of them .... This year, they lost it. It happens.

I think what had people fooled was twofold. (1) Everyone thought that the Bemidji loss was a fluke rather than an indication of the quality of the two teams; (2) Cornell was bringing back a core from a team that was a fluky loss from the Final Four.

What we learned this year was that Bemidji really was as good as they looked against Notre Dame and Cornell (tonight's surprise loss to Michigan notwithstanding*) and Cornell wasn't really a final four squad in either '09 or '10.

* Did you ever think you'd read that a Michigan win over Bemidji was a surprise?

adamw
Why is that when a team has a bad night, it was the coach's fault for not coaching them properly? In this game, I think they just didn't play well. Period.

Bingo. We're lucky to have Schafer. Play them again and I'm sure that it would be more credible, I can't believe that UNH is that good and teams like Union aren't any good. But we don't get that chance. Honestly, what system would work better given the recruiting challenges an Ivy League school faces? We need more speed to win in the NCAAs (Harvard had a lot of speed when they won in '89, haven't seen an Ivy League school with that much talent since then) but I'm satisfied with the efforts of the student athletes across the season and with Schafer and his system. And it's a pleasure to watch, win or lose.

RatushnyFan

adamw
Why is that when a team has a bad night, it was the coach's fault for not coaching them properly? In this game, I think they just didn't play well. Period.

Bingo. We're lucky to have Schafer. Play them again and I'm sure that it would be more credible, I can't believe that UNH is that good and teams like Union aren't any good. But we don't get that chance. Honestly, what system would work better given the recruiting challenges an Ivy League school faces? We need more speed to win in the NCAAs (Harvard had a lot of speed when they won in '89, haven't seen an Ivy League school with that much talent since then) I'm satisfied with the efforts of the student athletes across the season and with Schafer and his system. And it's a pleasure to watch, win or lose.

Yale, which is subject to the same Ivy limits seems to have found a very different style of play that puts them in the top of the ECAC and has qualified for the NCAA Tournament the last 2 years. They have been beating us with sticks for the last 2 years.

kaelistus
Also of note - Cornell was, once again, the best team in the tournament to not offer scholarships. We win that pseudo title year in and year out.

Given the latest results, would you like to revise and extend your remarks?

Well, I'm glad Yale won, if only to refute the stupid EZAC-type comments I'm seeing in this board. I expect that type of comment from USCHO, but not from here. The ECAC has traditionally been the 4th conference, but it's always been competitive. We put 2 guys in the ECAC this year, HEA put 3.

Sure, I'll revise: Cornell was the second best non-scholarship team in the tournament this year. Yet somehow I don't find myself disappointed by that. In fact, I'm actually really comforted by the fact that you people are whining about this finish. TWELVE ECAC CHAMPIONSHIPS! WOOOooo!! Schafer has spoiled you. Also, I don't buy the easy tournament argument - Union was 19th in RPI and the we earned the Brown placement by having a 29 point season. What I am annoyed at tho is that between you and Facetimer we seem to be loosing the 'cheer the team through thick and thin' attitude that existed back when we were in college. Especially since I live in super fickle Red Sox country, I don't want that to go away.

A second note: Everyone has a bad game. And I don't deny that we did. But I think it's insulting to infer that the Cornell players didn't try hard enough or didn't want it hard enough.

kaelistus
What I am annoyed at tho is that between you and Facetimer we seem to be loosing the 'cheer the team through thick and thin' attitude that existed back when we were in college.

Okay, let's be clear: I didn't piss and moan heavily until after the season was over. As I just said in the other thread, though, I probably should have waited a bit more time before starting. But I also never found the "cheer them on no matter what happens" attitude to be particularly intellectually satisfying. I like debating way too much for that. ELF would be far less interesting if everyone were positive all the time. I also don't bitch and moan AT the games, and I'm always there from warmups until after the stick salute, cheering no matter what happens.

Please note also that I'm not indicting the entire program. I am simply disappointed that this particular roster didn't live up to the expectations of many going into this year, and seemed to be two entirely different teams on different nights. I'm disappointed that the senior class didn't get a Frozen Four appearance because Friday happened to be one of the nights the defense mailed it in for the second half of the game. They didn't even wait for Saturday, like they did the rest of the season! It doesn't take away from their other accomplishments, but it is disappointing nonetheless. I hope that makes sense, because I don't think I can be any more clear.

Especially since I live in super fickle Red Sox country, I don't want that to go away.

Super-fickle Red Sox country? Are you kidding? The Sox fans I know are rabid, like Cornell fans: I often call Cornell the Red Sox of college hockey, because of their fan fervor and long title drought despite consistent competitiveness. "Demanding" is the word you want, and is a NY Yankees attitude: beat on the team when they're down.

A second note: Everyone has a bad game. And I don't deny that we did. But I think it's insulting to infer that the Cornell players didn't try hard enough or didn't want it hard enough.

I don't know how else you explain their poor second half performance. "A bad game" = "didn't play as hard or as smart as they could", which is devastating in a single-elimination tournament. It's not meant as an insult, but as an attempt to explain the reality of the situation. If the scoring went 1-0, 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, 2-3 and that's how they lost, I would not be saying this: I would be saying, "Them's the breaks! One team's gotta lose." But the scoring went 1-0, 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, 1-4, 1-5, 2-5. This team should not have had that game.

Kyle Rose
Super-fickle Red Sox country? Are you kidding? The Sox fans I know are rabid, like Cornell fans: I often call Cornell the Red Sox of college hockey, because of their fan fervor and long title drought despite consistent competitiveness. "Demanding" is the word you want, and is a NY Yankees attitude: beat on the team when they're down.

Red Sox fans support their team at all costs. But they don't support their players. With the possible exception of Ortiz, it only takes a couple of bad breaks for them to call for player's heads. Its annoying (tho I don't mind it so much when someone is paid to play). As an example, a few months ago there well calls to trade the all star closer because he had one bad game in the playoffs last year.

I actually think the analogy is perfect. I'm sure you're suddenly not going to stop cheering for the team. But at the same time, you're starting threads with the topic "Buh-bye, seniors" and include the line "See ya, seniors. What a way to go out. Blah. ". Nice. You do know that many athletes and family read this forum right? This is even worse when they had such a great season, that just didn't meet whatever expectation you had for the team.

kaelistus
Nice. You do know that many athletes and family read this forum right? This is even worse when they had such a great season, that just didn't meet whatever expectation you had for the team.

Unless something has changed, it's my understanding that Coach Schafer forbids players from reading eLynah. If family members choose to read eLynah they do so at their own risk. And on the whole there is certainly much more here that is positive than negative.

As for the attack on Kyle he has both apologized for letting the conversation spill from one thread to the other, and has also said he should have waited a couple of days before posting.

Finally as a relatively neutral observer in all this I do feel the need to point out that your statement about the team not meeting whatever expectations Kyle had for them seems to be shared by at least 65 other members of eLynah, which, at least for now, is a slightly larger number than those that believe the team met or exceeded expectations. Could those numbers be biased by the pain and disappointment of the last game? Of course. But I don't see the point in attacking Kyle, especially in light of the apologies he has already offered.

andyw2100

kaelistus
Nice. You do know that many athletes and family read this forum right? This is even worse when they had such a great season, that just didn't meet whatever expectation you had for the team.

Unless something has changed, it's my understanding that Coach Schafer forbids players from reading eLynah. If family members choose to read eLynah they do so at their own risk. And on the whole there is certainly much more here that is positive than negative.

As for the attack on Kyle he has both apologized for letting the conversation spill from one thread to the other, and has also said he should have waited a couple of days before posting.

Finally as a relatively neutral observer in all this I do feel the need to point out that your statement about the team not meeting whatever expectations Kyle had for them seems to be shared by at least 65 other members of eLynah, which, at least for now, is a slightly larger number than those that believe the team met or exceeded expectations. Could those numbers be biased by the pain and disappointment of the last game? Of course. But I don't see the point in attacking Kyle, especially in light of the apologies he has already offered.

All of what you say is true, but I'd suggest to Kyle that if he really wants to change the tenor of the conversation, he could go back and change the thread title and put his changes in his original post. That is, better describe what he means, that would take some of the personal attack away.

I, for one, voted on underachievement, but that was a team vote. By no means do I put the deficit on only the seniors, and the only negative I really have is their inconsistency. I was terribly happy when Greening and Nash said they were coming back, and we have to balance our unhappiness with the fact that they did feel continuing their education was important. If Greening goes on to win more awards, such as Lowe's, that will need to be put in the pot as an achievement, as well. This "season" is not over.

andyw2100
Unless something has changed, it's my understanding that Coach Schafer forbids players from reading eLynah. If family members choose to read eLynah they do so at their own risk. And on the whole there is certainly much more here that is positive than negative.

1- It's been clear over the last few years that some of the players break that rule especially when the season is over. When we make "thank you seniors" type threads, I think we expect some of the seniors to actually see it.

2- This was probably the most negative thread I have seen in my 14 years here. With the exception of Facetimer's rants against the coach. But those were so crazy, they were kinda funny. I don't think Kyle meant it that way, but that's the way it comes across to me.

I don't know If I'm being clear here, it's not that I want everything to be positive here, but there's a huge difference between:
- Paolini needs to stop taking stupid penalties (Name chosen randomly)
- See ya, Paolini, blah.
One is thoughtful discourse of possible flaws in or play. The other one is just insulting.

Somewhat related, given that we can't get into the minds of the players, saying they do/don't play with heart is something I've never been a fan of.

andyw2100
Finally as a relatively neutral observer in all this I do feel the need to point out that your statement about the team not meeting whatever expectations Kyle had for them seems to be shared by at least 65 other members of eLynah, which, at least for now, is a slightly larger number than those that believe the team met or exceeded expectations. Could those numbers be biased by the pain and disappointment of the last game? Of course. But I don't see the point in attacking Kyle, especially in light of the apologies he has already offered.

The number was very lopsided earlier when the thread started and is now going the other way. I think a lot of people were frustrated by the game and are now realizing that we had a pretty good season nonetheless. I'm doing my part by trying to keep people grounded and pointing this out.

Anyway, in light of Kyle's apology: I didn't post another reply in the other thread. Given that's what he apologized for, I still found it appropriate to point out what I find incorrect in what he posted in this thread. For the record, I've met Kyle multiple times (Although he probably doesn't remember me), and enjoy his company quite a bit.

kaelistus
You do know that many athletes and family read this forum right? This is even worse when they had such a great season, that just didn't meet whatever expectation you had for the team.

In the future, I'll be sure to discuss any negative thoughts regarding Cornell hockey where players' families won't be reading: maybe on some forum related to knitting or motorcycles.

andyw2100
Finally as a relatively neutral observer in all this I do feel the need to point out that your statement about the team not meeting whatever expectations Kyle had for them seems to be shared by at least 65 other members of eLynah, which, at least for now, is a slightly larger number than those that believe the team met or exceeded expectations. Could those numbers be biased by the pain and disappointment of the last game? Of course. But I don't see the point in attacking Kyle, especially in light of the apologies he has already offered.

I worded it poorly, as well: the choices should have been something like "Met Expectations" and "Underachieved" or "Met Expectations" and "Did not meet expectations". The team has clearly "achieved" a lot, regardless of whether they've also "underachieved".

Jim Hyla
All of what you say is true, but I'd suggest to Kyle that if he really wants to change the tenor of the conversation, he could go back and change the thread title and put his changes in his original post. That is, better describe what he means, that would take some of the personal attack away.

I don't change history. What's done is done.

I, for one, voted on underachievement, but that was a team vote. By no means do I put the deficit on only the seniors, and the only negative I really have is their inconsistency.

The idea that I was blaming the loss entirely on the seniors is probably the greatest source of misunderstanding, and probably the thing I regret the most about how this has been received. I can see how one would think that given how I worded the initial post, but that was not my intent. The team as a whole played a disappointing game one too many times this season, and unlike previous NCAA runs did it at precisely the wrong time this year.

kaelistus
Sure, I'll revise: Cornell was the second best non-scholarship team in the tournament this year.

Make that third-best. RIT doesn't give scholarships either.

Towerroad
Yale, which is subject to the same Ivy limits seems to have found a very different style of play that puts them in the top of the ECAC and has qualified for the NCAA Tournament the last 2 years. They have been beating us with sticks for the last 2 years.

And your point is? Yale is now 1-2 in the NCAAs under Allain. Schafer is 7-8. Let's see Yale get to that before suggesting Allain's system will be superior than Cornell's in the NCAAs. How did tonight's shellacking look for Yale's system? When Cornell played superior opponents - very skilled - on the ROAD in 2005 and 2006, they took both to excruciating OT losses. This was the problem with Yale's system in the NCAAs. You're trying to run and gun with teams that are much more talented top to bottom.

Kyle Rose

kaelistus
You do know that many athletes and family read this forum right? This is even worse when they had such a great season, that just didn't meet whatever expectation you had for the team.

In the future, I'll be sure to discuss any negative thoughts regarding Cornell hockey where players' families won't be reading: maybe on some forum related to knitting or motorcycles.

Knitting...? That would be ravelry, and you meet all sorts of people. We've got a hockey board, but not many college hockey fans there and mostly they're for the big M schools out west.

adamw

Towerroad
Yale, which is subject to the same Ivy limits seems to have found a very different style of play that puts them in the top of the ECAC and has qualified for the NCAA Tournament the last 2 years. They have been beating us with sticks for the last 2 years.

And your point is? Yale is now 1-2 in the NCAAs under Allain. Schafer is 7-8. Let's see Yale get to that before suggesting Allain's system will be superior than Cornell's in the NCAAs. How did tonight's shellacking look for Yale's system? When Cornell played superior opponents - very skilled - on the ROAD in 2005 and 2006, they took both to excruciating OT losses. This was the problem with Yale's system in the NCAAs. You're trying to run and gun with teams that are much more talented top to bottom.

The point is that there are those that claim that Schafer is doing an outstanding job operating under the Ivy constraints and that there is no other system that could replicate these results. So I wanted to point out that Yale has been doing very well of late playing a very different style of hockey. They seem to be able to attract the sort of player that others claim are not available to Ivy's. This style has been beating us with an annoying regularity over the last 2 years.

Our strong structured defensive system is vulnerable in transition which is just the sort of hockey that "Run and gun" Yale plays. Our offense is not strong enough to counter punch.

I find it disheartening that we are merely satisfied with "meeting expectations" because the team should strive a lot more than that. The goal is the win the NCAA championship at the end of the year and not patting ourselves on the back for the ECAC championships. Quite frankly, winning the ECACs doesn't mean that much if we are just going to lose to HEA and CHA teams a week after. At this rate, we will be recruiting mediocre players every year and maybe get lucky with another 2003 - but that's all we're gonna get.

That said, the players this year did "meet expectations" given their circumstances. I find it hard to argue that they should have made it to the Frozen Four because it would have required them to make exceptional performances. Maybe we could have played better on Friday against UNH, but that doesn't take away from their performance throughout the season. It's just too bad that these expectations are not high enough and the Ivy League does not give a crap about NCAA titles.

Towerroad
The point is that there are those that claim that Schafer is doing an outstanding job operating under the Ivy constraints and that there is no other system that could replicate these results. So I wanted to point out that Yale has been doing very well of late playing a very different style of hockey. They seem to be able to attract the sort of player that others claim are not available to Ivy's. This style has been beating us with an annoying regularity over the last 2 years.

Our strong structured defensive system is vulnerable in transition which is just the sort of hockey that "Run and gun" Yale plays. Our offense is not strong enough to counter punch.

I disagree. And my point is that no one else has done any better in the league with a different system. Yale's had a good run, and no better (worse) in the NCAAs. I certainly never said no other system could do anything ... but you can't argue that Schafer's system doesn't work. It does. Play any other system, and you'll get no better results. Ultimately, any system is OK if you have good players and execute it well. The other teams have better players. Period.

Towerroad

adamw

Towerroad
Yale, which is subject to the same Ivy limits seems to have found a very different style of play that puts them in the top of the ECAC and has qualified for the NCAA Tournament the last 2 years. They have been beating us with sticks for the last 2 years.

And your point is? Yale is now 1-2 in the NCAAs under Allain. Schafer is 7-8. Let's see Yale get to that before suggesting Allain's system will be superior than Cornell's in the NCAAs. How did tonight's shellacking look for Yale's system? When Cornell played superior opponents - very skilled - on the ROAD in 2005 and 2006, they took both to excruciating OT losses. This was the problem with Yale's system in the NCAAs. You're trying to run and gun with teams that are much more talented top to bottom.

The point is that there are those that claim that Schafer is doing an outstanding job operating under the Ivy constraints and that there is no other system that could replicate these results. So I wanted to point out that Yale has been doing very well of late playing a very different style of hockey. They seem to be able to attract the sort of player that others claim are not available to Ivy's. This style has been beating us with an annoying regularity over the last 2 years.

Our strong structured defensive system is vulnerable in transition which is just the sort of hockey that "Run and gun" Yale plays. Our offense is not strong enough to counter punch.

The head to head results have nothing to do with the style of play, they're a result of talent and execution. Yale has had the better of both against Cornell in the last two years, and yet Cornell and Yale have the same record in the NCAA tournament in that time.

If you still need more evidence, Cornell beat a run-and-gun style team in 2003. In fact, they beat 2. In a row. In the NCAA tournament. They beat them by playing the same style of hockey Cornell's been playing for the last 15 years. The first team (MSU-M) got thumped because they were basically this year's Yale team - 2 big scoring lines and no defense at all. The second was a tight game because BC was a more complete team than MSU-M.

Yale has had 2 good seasons and 1 NCAA win. They picked up some great talent up front and made a nice run that ended with 9 GA in the regional final. Why, exactly, would we choose to follow that path? It's no more successful than Cornell's current style of play, and it's never proven to be consistently successful at a national level, at least not for any ECAC school.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm all for those forwards coming to play for Cornell. I just don't think you can count on getting them on anything approaching a regular basis. In most cases the ECAC schools will get guys who are not quite as good as the guys at the top hockey programs.

adamw

Towerroad
The point is that there are those that claim that Schafer is doing an outstanding job operating under the Ivy constraints and that there is no other system that could replicate these results. So I wanted to point out that Yale has been doing very well of late playing a very different style of hockey. They seem to be able to attract the sort of player that others claim are not available to Ivy's. This style has been beating us with an annoying regularity over the last 2 years.

Our strong structured defensive system is vulnerable in transition which is just the sort of hockey that "Run and gun" Yale plays. Our offense is not strong enough to counter punch.

I disagree. And my point is that no one else has done any better in the league with a different system. Yale's had a good run, and no better (worse) in the NCAAs. I certainly never said no other system could do anything ... but you can't argue that Schafer's system doesn't work. It does. Play any other system, and you'll get no better results. Ultimately, any system is OK if you have good players and execute it well. The other teams have better players. Period.

In his fifteen years at Cornell, Mike's teams have won the Whitelaw five times. Only Harvard, at three, has more than half that number. Mike's teams have had one Frozen Four appearance. The other eleven ECAC teams have a total of two, and that includes subsequently defecting Vermont in 1996. Mike's teams have won seven NCAA games in those fifteen years. The other eleven ECAC schools have won a total of five.

Al DeFlorio

adamw

Towerroad
The point is that there are those that claim that Schafer is doing an outstanding job operating under the Ivy constraints and that there is no other system that could replicate these results. So I wanted to point out that Yale has been doing very well of late playing a very different style of hockey. They seem to be able to attract the sort of player that others claim are not available to Ivy's. This style has been beating us with an annoying regularity over the last 2 years.

Our strong structured defensive system is vulnerable in transition which is just the sort of hockey that "Run and gun" Yale plays. Our offense is not strong enough to counter punch.

I disagree. And my point is that no one else has done any better in the league with a different system. Yale's had a good run, and no better (worse) in the NCAAs. I certainly never said no other system could do anything ... but you can't argue that Schafer's system doesn't work. It does. Play any other system, and you'll get no better results. Ultimately, any system is OK if you have good players and execute it well. The other teams have better players. Period.

In his fifteen years at Cornell, Mike's teams have won the Whitelaw five times. Only Harvard, at three, has more than half that number. Mike's teams have had one Frozen Four appearance. The other eleven ECAC teams have a total of two, and that includes subsequently defecting Vermont in 1996. Mike's teams have won seven NCAA games in those fifteen years. The other eleven ECAC schools have won a total of five.

That, to me, says it all. Unless we expect a precipitous decline (and given the information out there about the next couple of recruiting classes, that seems unlikely), I don't think we have anything serious to complain about.

Who would have thought a long outdated defensive system, an outrageously overrated goaltender, and a flaccid offense would have resulted in being bounced in the first round?

But seriously, as long as this system is in place, we will never win a championship. The belief that you can have 5 shots on goal in a period, get up 1-0, and ride that 40 more minutes to a win is just not going to happen. What happens when you fall behind a couple goals? You can't build a successful system on making sure you're always ahead, it's just not realistic.

Here's to next year when we hopefully make some progress on those fronts and the team hopefully proves me wrong.

ScrewBU
The belief that you can have 5 shots on goal in a period, get up 1-0, and ride that 40 more minutes to a win is just not going to happen.

Were we watching the same game? Cornell carried the play in the 2nd period on Friday, put a lot of pressure on in the offensive zone, and had 11 shots to show for it in the period. They were certainly not playing "ride it out" hockey in that period.

What happens when you fall behind a couple goals?

I guess you come back.

And then you do it again.

And then just for shits and giggles, you keep doing it.

And then if at that point people still believe that your team/system is dead in the water after 2 goal deficits, then I guess you just give up trying to show otherwise.

ScrewBU
But seriously, as long as this system is in place, we will never win a championship.

Wisconsin won a championship in 2006 playing essentially the exact same system we do.

kaelistus

ScrewBU
But seriously, as long as this system is in place, we will never win a championship.

Wisconsin won a championship in 2006 playing essentially the exact same system we do.

2003 notwithstanding (the issues there being different from 2006's issues), this is IMO the closest Cornell has been to winning a national championship during my period as a fan. I firmly believe that the winner of that regional was better than the other 3 teams that made the Frozen Four, and would likely have won the championship. Wisconsin and Cornell were damned evenly matched, and it was just luck of the draw that Wisconsin scored first.

Kyle Rose

kaelistus

ScrewBU
But seriously, as long as this system is in place, we will never win a championship.

Wisconsin won a championship in 2006 playing essentially the exact same system we do.

2003 notwithstanding (the issues there being different from 2006's issues), this is IMO the closest Cornell has been to winning a national championship during my period as a fan. I firmly believe that the winner of that regional was better than the other 3 teams that made the Frozen Four, and would likely have won the championship. Wisconsin and Cornell were damned evenly matched, and it was just luck of the draw that Wisconsin scored first.

60 to 40 shot differential might go against that.

Think "Rope-A-Dope"

Jim Hyla

Kyle Rose

kaelistus

ScrewBU
But seriously, as long as this system is in place, we will never win a championship.

Wisconsin won a championship in 2006 playing essentially the exact same system we do.

2003 notwithstanding (the issues there being different from 2006's issues), this is IMO the closest Cornell has been to winning a national championship during my period as a fan. I firmly believe that the winner of that regional was better than the other 3 teams that made the Frozen Four, and would likely have won the championship. Wisconsin and Cornell were damned evenly matched, and it was just luck of the draw that Wisconsin scored first.

60 to 40 shot differential might go against that.

I can't remember, and it's impossible to tell from the shot count, but it's possible Cornell was taking fewer low-percentage shots in the hopes of retaining possession for a better shot. The reason I posit this is that Cornell has behaved this way a lot over the last 10-15 years. But honestly, after 4 years my memory of the game is very fuzzy (and I missed the third overtime, anyway...)

Jim Hyla

Kyle Rose

kaelistus

ScrewBU
But seriously, as long as this system is in place, we will never win a championship.

Wisconsin won a championship in 2006 playing essentially the exact same system we do.

2003 notwithstanding (the issues there being different from 2006's issues), this is IMO the closest Cornell has been to winning a national championship during my period as a fan. I firmly believe that the winner of that regional was better than the other 3 teams that made the Frozen Four, and would likely have won the championship. Wisconsin and Cornell were damned evenly matched, and it was just luck of the draw that Wisconsin scored first.

60 to 40 shot differential might go against that.

Wisconsin had the edge, but Elliot made that save on Bitz at the end of the 3rd that he had absolutely no right making. Both teams could have scored a number of times, and the game could have gone either way.

Dafatone

Jim Hyla

Kyle Rose

kaelistus

ScrewBU
But seriously, as long as this system is in place, we will never win a championship.

Wisconsin won a championship in 2006 playing essentially the exact same system we do.

2003 notwithstanding (the issues there being different from 2006's issues), this is IMO the closest Cornell has been to winning a national championship during my period as a fan. I firmly believe that the winner of that regional was better than the other 3 teams that made the Frozen Four, and would likely have won the championship. Wisconsin and Cornell were damned evenly matched, and it was just luck of the draw that Wisconsin scored first.

60 to 40 shot differential might go against that.

Wisconsin had the edge, but Elliot made that save on Bitz at the end of the 3rd that he had absolutely no right making. Both teams could have scored a number of times, and the game could have gone either way.

Didn't Glover ring one off the post in the 3rd OT as well?

Dafatone
Wisconsin had the edge, but Elliot made that save on Bitz at the end of the 3rd that he had absolutely no right making. Both teams could have scored a number of times, and the game could have gone either way.

Exactly my recollection. Amazing game.

Dafatone
Both teams could have scored a number of times, and the game could have gone either way.

Not to take anything away from it, but that's almost a truism when you're more than halfway into the 3rd OT.

Jordan 04

ScrewBU
The belief that you can have 5 shots on goal in a period, get up 1-0, and ride that 40 more minutes to a win is just not going to happen.

Were we watching the same game? Cornell carried the play in the 2nd period on Friday, put a lot of pressure on in the offensive zone, and had 11 shots to show for it in the period. They were certainly not playing "ride it out" hockey in that period.

What happens when you fall behind a couple goals?

I guess you come back.

And then you do it again.

And then just for shits and giggles, you keep doing it.

And then if at that point people still believe that your team/system is dead in the water after 2 goal deficits, then I guess you just give up trying to show otherwise.

Forgetting about the argument for a second, I love this post. Three great memories.

Jordan 04

ScrewBU
The belief that you can have 5 shots on goal in a period, get up 1-0, and ride that 40 more minutes to a win is just not going to happen.

Were we watching the same game? Cornell carried the play in the 2nd period on Friday, put a lot of pressure on in the offensive zone, and had 11 shots to show for it in the period. They were certainly not playing "ride it out" hockey in that period.

What happens when you fall behind a couple goals?

I guess you come back.

And then you do it again.

And then just for shits and giggles, you keep doing it.

And then if at that point people still believe that your team/system is dead in the water after 2 goal deficits, then I guess you just give up trying to show otherwise.

What's the common thread in all those box scores you posted? The opposing team only scored 2 goals each time. 2 goals isn't that much.

Another common thread? Cornell got knocked out the next round in all three cases. They used up their offense coming from 2 goals behind and had nothing left for the next night.

The last noteworthy common thread? In the three games following those you mentioned, Cornell scored a total of THREE GOALS, THREE GOALS IN THREE GAMES. That ain't "gettin it done" in my opinion, and it speaks to Schafer's inability to recruit or coach a team that can consistently score even TWO GOALS (TWO F'ING GOALS!!!) in consecutive tournament games.

It's a pattern and it's not changing anytime soon under this system. If you consider a 7-8 record in the tournament a success, than yes, we've been tremendously successful coming out of a 4th rated conference. But if you measure success by Frozen Four's and National Championships, like Schafer and his staff have promised time and time again, then it's ludicrous to accept these results.

You're not going to win NCAA Championships averaging 2 goals in the first 2 games of the regional. Bottom line. And, with the exception of 2003, that's all the Schafer system has been able to muster in 15 years.

YankeeLobo

Jordan 04

ScrewBU
The belief that you can have 5 shots on goal in a period, get up 1-0, and ride that 40 more minutes to a win is just not going to happen.

Were we watching the same game? Cornell carried the play in the 2nd period on Friday, put a lot of pressure on in the offensive zone, and had 11 shots to show for it in the period. They were certainly not playing "ride it out" hockey in that period.

What happens when you fall behind a couple goals?

I guess you come back.

And then you do it again.

And then just for shits and giggles, you keep doing it.

And then if at that point people still believe that your team/system is dead in the water after 2 goal deficits, then I guess you just give up trying to show otherwise.

What's the common thread in all those box scores you posted? The opposing team only scored 2 goals each time. 2 goals isn't that much.

Another common thread? Cornell got knocked out the next round in all three cases. They used up their offense coming from 2 goals behind and had nothing left for the next night.

The last noteworthy common thread? In the three games following those you mentioned, Cornell scored a total of THREE GOALS, THREE GOALS IN THREE GAMES. That ain't "gettin it done" in my opinion, and it speaks to Schafer's inability to recruit or coach a team that can consistently score even TWO GOALS (TWO F'ING GOALS!!!) in consecutive tournament games.

It's a pattern and it's not changing anytime soon under this system. If you consider a 7-8 record in the tournament a success, than yes, we've been tremendously successful coming out of a 4th rated conference. But if you measure success by Frozen Four's and National Championships, like Schafer and his staff have promised time and time again, then it's ludicrous to accept these results.

You're not going to win NCAA Championships averaging 2 goals in the first 2 games of the regional. Bottom line. And, with the exception of 2003, that's all the Schafer system has been able to muster in 15 years.

Used up our offense? I wasn't aware that you had a set amount of offense to spread over a weekend.

And as has been pointed out (in this thread or one of the other ones) Wisconsin won it all doing exactly what we do.

Dafatone

YankeeLobo

Jordan 04

ScrewBU
The belief that you can have 5 shots on goal in a period, get up 1-0, and ride that 40 more minutes to a win is just not going to happen.

Were we watching the same game? Cornell carried the play in the 2nd period on Friday, put a lot of pressure on in the offensive zone, and had 11 shots to show for it in the period. They were certainly not playing "ride it out" hockey in that period.

What happens when you fall behind a couple goals?

I guess you come back.

And then you do it again.

And then just for shits and giggles, you keep doing it.

And then if at that point people still believe that your team/system is dead in the water after 2 goal deficits, then I guess you just give up trying to show otherwise.

What's the common thread in all those box scores you posted? The opposing team only scored 2 goals each time. 2 goals isn't that much.

Another common thread? Cornell got knocked out the next round in all three cases. They used up their offense coming from 2 goals behind and had nothing left for the next night.

The last noteworthy common thread? In the three games following those you mentioned, Cornell scored a total of THREE GOALS, THREE GOALS IN THREE GAMES. That ain't "gettin it done" in my opinion, and it speaks to Schafer's inability to recruit or coach a team that can consistently score even TWO GOALS (TWO F'ING GOALS!!!) in consecutive tournament games.

It's a pattern and it's not changing anytime soon under this system. If you consider a 7-8 record in the tournament a success, than yes, we've been tremendously successful coming out of a 4th rated conference. But if you measure success by Frozen Four's and National Championships, like Schafer and his staff have promised time and time again, then it's ludicrous to accept these results.

You're not going to win NCAA Championships averaging 2 goals in the first 2 games of the regional. Bottom line. And, with the exception of 2003, that's all the Schafer system has been able to muster in 15 years.

Used up our offense? I wasn't aware that you had a set amount of offense to spread over a weekend.

And as has been pointed out (in this thread or one of the other ones) Wisconsin won it all doing exactly what we do.

I didn't mean 'using up our offense' literally, but this team has lacked offensive energy the night after making those come from behind wins.

All I'm saying is look at the results. I don't think any team's goal, especially teams in the 3 top conferences, is to win their conference title. Maybe Alabama-Huntsville's goal is to win their conference and they'll be happy just being in the tournament, but Cornell should have far loftier goals than winning the ECAC championship every year.

If we're going to be happy just getting to the NCAA tournament, what's the point? I've said before this isn't Cornell basketball.

If we open up the offense, our admissions requirements will drop, our tuition will decrease, and we will get Minnesota's lineup every year.

Admittedly, it seems obvious after the fact.

Dafatone

YankeeLobo

Jordan 04

ScrewBU
The belief that you can have 5 shots on goal in a period, get up 1-0, and ride that 40 more minutes to a win is just not going to happen.

Were we watching the same game? Cornell carried the play in the 2nd period on Friday, put a lot of pressure on in the offensive zone, and had 11 shots to show for it in the period. They were certainly not playing "ride it out" hockey in that period.

What happens when you fall behind a couple goals?

I guess you come back.

And then you do it again.

And then just for shits and giggles, you keep doing it.

And then if at that point people still believe that your team/system is dead in the water after 2 goal deficits, then I guess you just give up trying to show otherwise.

What's the common thread in all those box scores you posted? The opposing team only scored 2 goals each time. 2 goals isn't that much.

Another common thread? Cornell got knocked out the next round in all three cases. They used up their offense coming from 2 goals behind and had nothing left for the next night.

The last noteworthy common thread? In the three games following those you mentioned, Cornell scored a total of THREE GOALS, THREE GOALS IN THREE GAMES. That ain't "gettin it done" in my opinion, and it speaks to Schafer's inability to recruit or coach a team that can consistently score even TWO GOALS (TWO F'ING GOALS!!!) in consecutive tournament games.

It's a pattern and it's not changing anytime soon under this system. If you consider a 7-8 record in the tournament a success, than yes, we've been tremendously successful coming out of a 4th rated conference. But if you measure success by Frozen Four's and National Championships, like Schafer and his staff have promised time and time again, then it's ludicrous to accept these results.

You're not going to win NCAA Championships averaging 2 goals in the first 2 games of the regional. Bottom line. And, with the exception of 2003, that's all the Schafer system has been able to muster in 15 years.

Used up our offense? I wasn't aware that you had a set amount of offense to spread over a weekend.

And as has been pointed out (in this thread or one of the other ones) Wisconsin won it all doing exactly what we do.

Somebody must have stolen our Precious Bodily Fluids.

YankeeLobo

Towerroad
I think this is a little classless. Kick a guy when he is down.

Let's not bash the players. Bash the coach! the system! This is the 3rd time Cornell's been beat in the tournament by Umile, because Umile knows how to coach these guys up to break the gimmick Cornell defensive system. He makes it look easy, and he makes Schafer look stupid.

Even if I were inclined to argue that Umile has somehow figured out "the key" to unlocking the Schafer system*, I'm not sure how the 2002 game could be any sort of evidence about that point. UNH was just plain a better team that year; they had the top team offense in the country, including two of the top four individual scorers in the country; they won the Hockey East regular season title (with both the most goals scored and the fewest goals allowed), and the Hockey East championship. They had their first-round bye for a very good reason, and it was still a close game.

Also bear in mind that, per KRACH (i.e., a better ranking system than PWR), UNH should actually have been a slim favorite going into this year's game, despite the fact that Cornell was the higher seed per PWR. So, yeah, we lost a close game that we'd probably should've won in 2003. (To a team that had, for a second consecutive season, won the Hockey East regular season and tournament championships - that is to say, to another very good team, not to 2009-10 Clarkson or something.) It sucked, we all know that. Proof that Umile has figured out how to beat Schafer? That's something of a stretch.

* After all, if there were some magical secret to beating the Schafer system, wouldn't every other coach have watched those game tapes and beaten it the same way?

Yeah, Umile has discovered the secret of convincing the refs to do a five minute replay that ends up going against Cornell.

I think UMILE should be fired for putting so much effort into figuring out how to beat a team that he hasn't played in the post-season in 7 years. He should be putting all of his time into reviewing tape of the CCHA, WCHA ... and AHA.

Josh '99
Also bear in mind that, per KRACH (i.e., a better ranking system than PWR), UNH should actually have been a slim favorite going into this year's game, despite the fact that Cornell was the higher seed per PWR.

I don't think past records has much to do with Friday's game, the team we saw was much different from the team that played two weekends ago.

On the other hand, I'm not trying to jump on the bandwagon or anything, but I would like to see a change in our offensive strategy. Schafer's "system" needs the performance and cooperation of every shift and almost every man in order to work because that strategy only succeeds if the every shift applies constant pressure in the opposing side. Compared to run and gun teams, they only need a few good scorers to be on their game each night in order to put points on the board because teams will inevitably transition. Defense is just something they use to delay the other team's scoring, which UNH did because we didn't score "below expectations" that night. It takes much more discipline and consistency for Schafer's system to work and I think that's why we have those flops during the year. Teams like Yale only needs 2 or 3 of their top 6 scorers to perform each night and they will have a competitive game.

I think Umile should be fired for "using up all of his offense" against Cornell, and only scoring two goals the next game.

Seriously, is this conversation still taking place? Someone gripes that Cornell's "system" makes it impossible to come back in games. Someone quite obviously points out that Cornell came back from DOWN 2-0 in three consecutive NCAA First Round games .... and then original griper makes up cockamamie response about "using up all of the offense" .... I believe the conversation officially jumps the shark at that point.

In the words of Alan from The Hangover, you are a re-TARD.

There are 50 schools that would kill for Cornell's NCAA performance, the vast majority of which have better facilities, more money, and give scholarships. GET. A. CLUE.

Jeff Hopkins '82

Dafatone

YankeeLobo

Jordan 04

ScrewBU
The belief that you can have 5 shots on goal in a period, get up 1-0, and ride that 40 more minutes to a win is just not going to happen.

Were we watching the same game? Cornell carried the play in the 2nd period on Friday, put a lot of pressure on in the offensive zone, and had 11 shots to show for it in the period. They were certainly not playing "ride it out" hockey in that period.

What happens when you fall behind a couple goals?

I guess you come back.

And then you do it again.

And then just for shits and giggles, you keep doing it.

And then if at that point people still believe that your team/system is dead in the water after 2 goal deficits, then I guess you just give up trying to show otherwise.

What's the common thread in all those box scores you posted? The opposing team only scored 2 goals each time. 2 goals isn't that much.

Another common thread? Cornell got knocked out the next round in all three cases. They used up their offense coming from 2 goals behind and had nothing left for the next night.

The last noteworthy common thread? In the three games following those you mentioned, Cornell scored a total of THREE GOALS, THREE GOALS IN THREE GAMES. That ain't "gettin it done" in my opinion, and it speaks to Schafer's inability to recruit or coach a team that can consistently score even TWO GOALS (TWO F'ING GOALS!!!) in consecutive tournament games.

It's a pattern and it's not changing anytime soon under this system. If you consider a 7-8 record in the tournament a success, than yes, we've been tremendously successful coming out of a 4th rated conference. But if you measure success by Frozen Four's and National Championships, like Schafer and his staff have promised time and time again, then it's ludicrous to accept these results.

You're not going to win NCAA Championships averaging 2 goals in the first 2 games of the regional. Bottom line. And, with the exception of 2003, that's all the Schafer system has been able to muster in 15 years.

Used up our offense? I wasn't aware that you had a set amount of offense to spread over a weekend.

And as has been pointed out (in this thread or one of the other ones) Wisconsin won it all doing exactly what we do.

Somebody must have stolen our Precious Bodily Fluids.

Well played. :D

ajh258

Josh '99
Also bear in mind that, per KRACH (i.e., a better ranking system than PWR), UNH should actually have been a slim favorite going into this year's game, despite the fact that Cornell was the higher seed per PWR.

I don't think past records has much to do with Friday's game, the team we saw was much different from the team that played two weekends ago.

On the other hand, I'm not trying to jump on the bandwagon or anything, but I would like to see a change in our offensive strategy. Schafer's "system" needs the performance and cooperation of every shift and almost every man in order to work because that strategy only succeeds if the every shift applies constant pressure in the opposing side. Compared to run and gun teams, they only need a few good scorers to be on their game each night in order to put points on the board because teams will inevitably transition. Defense is just something they use to delay the other team's scoring, which UNH did because we didn't score "below expectations" that night. It takes much more discipline and consistency for Schafer's system to work and I think that's why we have those flops during the year. Teams like Yale only needs 2 or 3 of their top 6 scorers to perform each night and they will have a competitive game.

Do you seriously believe that Yale could get away with a bad game from one of its top two lines? Yale, with its complete and total lack of defense and goaltending and an entire system predicated on sustaining an aggressive forecheck, generating chances off turnovers, and relying on its forwards to disrupt the other team's ability to move the puck across all three zones? Maybe they could get away with it against Brown, (ok, maybe not even against Brown), but I think it's pretty clear that they couldn't get away with a bad game from any portion of their top lines against a team like BC. Yale made a few mistakes in the middle of that game and all of a sudden it was 9-4 and BC was packing their bags for Detroit with 10 minutes left to play. Watching that game the outcome wasn't in doubt after the first part of the third period - and I don't think Yale's forward lines played badly for more than maybe a few minutes in the second and a few minutes in the third. I'd hate to think of what it would have been like if 1/3 to 1/2 of Yale's top forward talent didn't play well for the *entire* game.

All you're saying is when two good teams play each other, the one that doesn't get consistent execution is likely to lose. I don't see what that has to do with the system or style of play.

Tom Lento
Do you seriously believe that Yale could get away with a bad game from one of its top two lines? Yale, with its complete and total lack of defense and goaltending and an entire system predicated on sustaining an aggressive forecheck, generating chances off turnovers, and relying on its forwards to disrupt the other team's ability to move the puck across all three zones? Maybe they could get away with it against Brown, (ok, maybe not even against Brown), but I think it's pretty clear that they couldn't get away with a bad game from any portion of their top lines against a team like BC. Yale made a few mistakes in the middle of that game and all of a sudden it was 9-4 and BC was packing their bags for Detroit with 10 minutes left to play. Watching that game the outcome wasn't in doubt after the first part of the third period - and I don't think Yale's forward lines played badly for more than maybe a few minutes in the second and a few minutes in the third. I'd hate to think of what it would have been like if 1/3 to 1/2 of Yale's top forward talent didn't play well for the *entire* game.

All you're saying is when two good teams play each other, the one that doesn't get consistent execution is likely to lose. I don't see what that has to do with the system or style of play.

I am not advocating that we turn into Yale, because a team needs good goaltending in order to consistently win. However, we do need to work on the way we transition and attack, which is the main point of my comment. Our current system is great for tiring down our opponents, but it's not putting enough points on the board. If Yale's defense is that pathetic, why can't we outscore them even once this year? It's because we always either dump it into the other end and have to fight for control with a new line or we pull back and reorganize, but then they will have all their defenders in position.

I don't think a gun and run strategy could get away with only one good line every night, but it's definitely possible, especially against teams like ours who don't score as much. All they need is one successful breakaway or a 2-on-1 and it could change the momentum dramatically on against a team that has been working hard to keep the puck contained in the opposing end. On the other hand, the success of our offensive strategy requires all 5 players to execute at the same time, over the entire game, every game. If one player fails, it could change into a turnover very easily and we are at the jeopardy of the other team. When enough of these scoring chances occur, it turns into goals, and that's what teams look for when they play against us.

So can we expect all of our players to perform every night over the entire season at all times? No. So what could we do to take advantage of our excellent defense? Change our offensive strategy. When run and gun teams are not firing on all cylinders, they can still win games because a few of their players will convert. I don't think every player on UNH was on their game last weekend - they had a few key plays making the goals and assists. When we are not, we see the entire team break down from a turning point, just like what happened against Dartmouth and Princeton.

ajh, I think Cornell's excellent defense is in large part due to the calculating way the offense is run. The team puts a priority on keeping the puck in the offensive zone and waits for its scoring opportunities; if there isn't one, the team doesn't try to force the puck on net or take a bad shot, it puts it back down low and works the other team over while trying to create a chance and all the while denying the opposition any. That offensive style minimizes transitional play for the other team that catch our defense at a disadvantage. You make it sound like Schafer, since the team has had defensive success, decided to turn off the offense spigot and content himself with just playing defense. Run and gun will have a detrimental impact on the defense, one that I expect would result in a net-loss in the goals-per-game differential and win/loss record given the type of player Cornell can generally bring in. Consider NoDak. There's no argument after the two game series that they have more individual talent than Cornell. In a skills contest the outcome would be embarrassingly in favor of NoDak. But I argued on here that Cornell played as good or better than NoDak the second night as a team and lost a game I thought they "should" have won. NoDaks players were zipping around and the puck was in Cornell's end more --it sure looked dazzling at times-- but Cornell's team play was such that NoDak really didn't have many quality scoring chances whereas I though Cornell, which had to wait for its moments, had more and better ones.

Jordan, just for fond memories, you also forgot this one.