2022 Takeaways

We played, what 15, guys who had never seen college ice? And still got a bye.

0 minutes of experience among three goaltenders. We come back next year with a solid #1 and a good backup, with another guy coming in.

The top 6 scorers, and 13 of the top 15, are expected to return.

Schafer lived.

And I'm still so confused I'm writing "2020" for "2022." If Age is still around, can you fix that?

I might add that it was a very entertaining year for Cornell fans. Some of us learned a bit of humility and yet the overall play and spirit of the Mike Schafer Cornell coached team is alive and well.

And another thing...

Is the 3-point cancer here to stay like the DH, or do we excrete it after the plague?

marty
I might add that it was a very entertaining year for Cornell fans. Some of us learned a bit of humility and yet the overall play and spirit of the Mike Schafer Cornell coached team is alive and well.

I would definitely not use “entertaining” to describe this season. “Excruciating” at the worst times, “promising” at the best times. Right from opening weekend against Alaska it was clear that this was going to be a difficult year. But the narrative was slow to catch up to how unpolished this team was. We were a mid-20s PWR team for most of the season, but kept getting ranked in the top 15 and even the top 10. We kept tying bad teams, but the media would treat our OT 3x3 wins like regulation wins. It was Bizarro World: watching the games, we looked consistently mediocre and we weren’t even consistently winning, but we continued to receive acclaim. By the end of the season we actually started to look pretty solid, culminating in a domination of Colgate over three games that we managed to lose anyway.

As the year progressed I grew to resent the Ivy League’s decision to cancel last season more and more. I know this is an unpopular opinion in these parts, but the Ivy League’s decision served no purpose other than to decimate the roster. Every game we’d go up against a team with far more experience. And that’s not to mention the players who signed pro contracts or transferred. I’d argue that if almost any one of the eight or so players who left the team were on our roster this year, we’d be heading to Lake Placid right now.

I do think the future looks fairly bright, given the returning players and the incoming recruits.

the ivies took it more serious than most schools, thats not a bad thing.. it hurt the team for sure.. given what people knew at the time it was probably the best decision. Had more serious things happened to kids I dont anyone would be questioning what they did.. And kids did get sick around the country and some were seriously sick even if its not widely publicized and and small number. The whole campus took a hit trying to get kids thru school and stay safe.

Canceling 2021 is one of the precious few things the Ivies did right over the last 50 years.

When compared with health and life sports simply does not matter.

Trotsky
Canceling 2021 is one of the precious few things the Ivies did right over the last 50 years.

When compared with health and life sports simply does not matter.

Boggles the mind that some can't seem to comprehend this. This is just a goddam game.

What Cornell did with a young roster was amazing. We overperformed against Quinnipiac and Clarkson, also against No. 1s such as North Dakota. We had trouble with the lower half of the ECAC order, and that seems kind of oh-so-Cornell. If only the power play was better than 17%.

Any year is a good year when we beat BU at Madison Square Garden. And there's the halo of Cornell sports heading into early spring: The basketball team showed real life, Wrestling has nine going to the NCAAs. And now Cornell lacrosse is top five.

Let's hope Mike Schafer continues on as Cornell coach. And gets win No. 500.

Trotsky
When compared with health and life sports simply does not matter.

Yes, agreed. If canceling 2021 benefitted health or life in any discernible way, I would certainly view that decision differently.

upprdeck
the ivies took it more serious than most schools, thats not a bad thing.. it hurt the team for sure.. given what people knew at the time it was probably the best decision. Had more serious things happened to kids I dont anyone would be questioning what they did.. And kids did get sick around the country and some were seriously sick even if its not widely publicized and and small number. The whole campus took a hit trying to get kids thru school and stay safe.

My problem is not that they cancelled the season, it's how they treated the players that were left behind. If they were truly thinking about the players, they would have acted differently and not hung the seniors out to dry.

How much better might have this years team been with more upperclassmen to steady them.

Does anyone think we wouldn't have had more success with Galajda as a senior?

Jim Hyla

upprdeck
the ivies took it more serious than most schools, thats not a bad thing.. it hurt the team for sure.. given what people knew at the time it was probably the best decision. Had more serious things happened to kids I dont anyone would be questioning what they did.. And kids did get sick around the country and some were seriously sick even if its not widely publicized and and small number. The whole campus took a hit trying to get kids thru school and stay safe.

My problem is not that they cancelled the season, it's how they treated the players that were left behind. If they were truly thinking about the players, they would have acted differently and not hung the seniors out to dry.

Yes, they flat out fucked the players. I don't know why they Hamletted it, though I assume it was in some way related to the cynical brand protection that motivates virtually everything the Ivies do.

Jim Hyla

upprdeck
the ivies took it more serious than most schools, thats not a bad thing.. it hurt the team for sure.. given what people knew at the time it was probably the best decision. Had more serious things happened to kids I dont anyone would be questioning what they did.. And kids did get sick around the country and some were seriously sick even if its not widely publicized and and small number. The whole campus took a hit trying to get kids thru school and stay safe.

My problem is not that they cancelled the season, it's how they treated the players that were left behind. If they were truly thinking about the players, they would have acted differently and not hung the seniors out to dry.

How much better might have this years team been with more upperclassmen to steady them.

Does anyone think we wouldn't have had more success with Galajda as a senior?

100% on that.. But the ivies are pretty much against the players of all the sport all the time anyway.. Why do we not let kids stay for 5 yr to work on grad degrees at schools that say there are here to make kids smarter.

upprdeck

Jim Hyla

upprdeck
the ivies took it more serious than most schools, thats not a bad thing.. it hurt the team for sure.. given what people knew at the time it was probably the best decision. Had more serious things happened to kids I dont anyone would be questioning what they did.. And kids did get sick around the country and some were seriously sick even if its not widely publicized and and small number. The whole campus took a hit trying to get kids thru school and stay safe.

My problem is not that they cancelled the season, it's how they treated the players that were left behind. If they were truly thinking about the players, they would have acted differently and not hung the seniors out to dry.

How much better might have this years team been with more upperclassmen to steady them.

Does anyone think we wouldn't have had more success with Galajda as a senior?

100% on that.. But the ivies are pretty much against the players of all the sport all the time anyway.. Why do we not let kids stay for 5 yr to work on grad degrees at schools that say there are here to make kids smarter.

Being dicks to the athletes is a discriminator so rich fucks keep sending their kids for the designer trophy, rather than looking at cost-effective degrees.

the whole school is full of grad students but we can let the athletes play it out.

It is now 11 years since the last ECAC title for Cornell. Three titles the last 25 years. Previous worst single gap, 1986-1996, 10 years. The current drought includes three trips to the title game and even Princeton has won more recently than us.

Year   Years since ECAC title
1967	--
1968	 1 (1=no gap)
1969	 1
1970	 1
1973	 3
1980	 7
1986	 6
1996	10
1997	 1
2003	 6
2005	 2
2010	 5
2022	11

billhoward
It is now 11 years since the last ECAC title for Cornell. Three titles the last 25 years. Previous worst single gap, 1986-1996, 10 years. The current drought includes three trips to the title game and even Princeton has won more recently than us.

Year   Years since ECAC title
1967	--
1968	 1 (1=no gap)
1969	 1
1970	 1
1973	 3
1980	 7
1986	 6
1996	10
1997	 1
2003	 6
2005	 2
2010	 5
2022	11

I know everyone here seems to love Schafer but do you think he is to blame for this?

blackwidow

billhoward
It is now 11 years since the last ECAC title for Cornell. Three titles the last 25 years. Previous worst single gap, 1986-1996, 10 years. The current drought includes three trips to the title game and even Princeton has won more recently than us.

Year   Years since ECAC title
1967	--
1968	 1 (1=no gap)
1969	 1
1970	 1
1973	 3
1980	 7
1986	 6
1996	10
1997	 1
2003	 6
2005	 2
2010	 5
2022	11

I know everyone here seems to love Schafer but do you think he is to blame for this?

In a word, "No".

redice

blackwidow

billhoward
It is now 11 years since the last ECAC title for Cornell. Three titles the last 25 years. Previous worst single gap, 1986-1996, 10 years. The current drought includes three trips to the title game and even Princeton has won more recently than us.

Year   Years since ECAC title
1967	--
1968	 1 (1=no gap)
1969	 1
1970	 1
1973	 3
1980	 7
1986	 6
1996	10
1997	 1
2003	 6
2005	 2
2010	 5
2022	11

I know everyone here seems to love Schafer but do you think he is to blame for this?

In a word, "No".

Curious to know why that is? Especially the fact that no NCAA title since the early 70s is astounding to me

blackwidow

redice

blackwidow

billhoward
It is now 11 years since the last ECAC title for Cornell. Three titles the last 25 years. Previous worst single gap, 1986-1996, 10 years. The current drought includes three trips to the title game and even Princeton has won more recently than us.

Year   Years since ECAC title
1967	--
1968	 1 (1=no gap)
1969	 1
1970	 1
1973	 3
1980	 7
1986	 6
1996	10
1997	 1
2003	 6
2005	 2
2010	 5
2022	11

I know everyone here seems to love Schafer but do you think he is to blame for this?

In a word, "No".

Curious to know why that is? Especially the fact that no NCAA title since the early 70s is astounding to me

For the curious.

blackwidow
I know everyone here seems to love Schafer but do you think he is to blame for this?

More teams and more parity now. Maybe (?) there are now more US players of good quality so they create better second and third lines for the have-less teams of decade ago. Quebec is supposed to be ground zero for great goalies and ours is from Manhattan Beach, California. US outnumbers Canada 9-1 and now there are lots of rinks in California, Arizona, Texas, Florida.

Is it possible there is a generational change that benefits coaches under 40? Some felt Ned Harkness' demeanor, possibly a factor of his generation, was not suited to the pro game where players didn't go in for what they saw as mickey mouse rules. (Although he was 51 when he went to Detroit, which isn't all that old.)

billhoward

blackwidow
I know everyone here seems to love Schafer but do you think he is to blame for this?

More teams and more parity now. Maybe (?) there are now more US players of good quality so they create better second and third lines for the have-less teams of decade ago. Quebec is supposed to be ground zero for great goalies and ours is from Manhattan Beach, California. US outnumbers Canada 9-1 and now there are lots of rinks in California, Arizona, Texas, Florida.

Is it possible there is a generational change that benefits coaches under 40? Some felt Ned Harkness' demeanor, possibly a factor of his generation, was not suited to the pro game where players didn't go in for what they saw as mickey mouse rules. (Although he was 51 when he went to Detroit, which isn't all that old.)

i understand there are more teams and college hockey is getting ever more competitive with Cornell having a disadvantage of not being able to offer athletic scholarships. But given the crap shoot nature of college hockey tournaments, i feel like if a program is somewhat decent, it would just randomly bounce into titles every decade or two...

blackwidow

redice

blackwidow

billhoward
It is now 11 years since the last ECAC title for Cornell. Three titles the last 25 years. Previous worst single gap, 1986-1996, 10 years. The current drought includes three trips to the title game and even Princeton has won more recently than us.

Year   Years since ECAC title
1967	--
1968	 1 (1=no gap)
1969	 1
1970	 1
1973	 3
1980	 7
1986	 6
1996	10
1997	 1
2003	 6
2005	 2
2010	 5
2022	11

I know everyone here seems to love Schafer but do you think he is to blame for this?

In a word, "No".

Curious to know why that is? Especially the fact that no NCAA title since the early 70s is astounding to me

Just look at the job he did recovering from the mess that the Ivy League left him (2020-2021). No titles since the early 70's? That can be said for most of the Ivy schools. Has he made the NCAA's often? Yes. Moral: An NCAA title is a long shot for most Ivys. I'm accepting of this but hope they can do it one more time in my lifetime. Mike gives them a good chance at that. And, let's not forget the 2019-2020 team that was in a good position to make a run at a title.

redice

blackwidow

redice

blackwidow

billhoward
It is now 11 years since the last ECAC title for Cornell. Three titles the last 25 years. Previous worst single gap, 1986-1996, 10 years. The current drought includes three trips to the title game and even Princeton has won more recently than us.

Year   Years since ECAC title
1967	--
1968	 1 (1=no gap)
1969	 1
1970	 1
1973	 3
1980	 7
1986	 6
1996	10
1997	 1
2003	 6
2005	 2
2010	 5
2022	11

I know everyone here seems to love Schafer but do you think he is to blame for this?

In a word, "No".

Curious to know why that is? Especially the fact that no NCAA title since the early 70s is astounding to me

Just look at the job he did recovering from the mess that the Ivy League left him (2020-2021). No titles since the early 70's? That can be said for most of the Ivy schools. Has he made the NCAA's often? Yes. Moral: An NCAA title is a long shot for most Ivys. I'm accepting of this but hope they can do it one more time in my lifetime. Mike gives them a good chance at that. And, let's not forget the 2019-2020 team that was in a good position to make a run at a title.

Harvard won it in 88 though and Yale won it in 2013 or 14 though. I understand they have the prestige factor but cornell def gets much more support from the school and fanbase. Also, dont we have somewhat of lower admissions standards when it comes to the academic side of things, which give us a greater talent pool to choose from? Also, im always suspiciois of the ECAC teams when they are ranked high in pairwise. That is to say, i wasnt sure if Cornell would have actually made a credible run in 19-20

blackwidow

redice

blackwidow

billhoward
It is now 11 years since the last ECAC title for Cornell. Three titles the last 25 years. Previous worst single gap, 1986-1996, 10 years. The current drought includes three trips to the title game and even Princeton has won more recently than us.

Year   Years since ECAC title
1967	--
1968	 1 (1=no gap)
1969	 1
1970	 1
1973	 3
1980	 7
1986	 6
1996	10
1997	 1
2003	 6
2005	 2
2010	 5
2022	11

I know everyone here seems to love Schafer but do you think he is to blame for this?

In a word, "No".

Curious to know why that is? Especially the fact that no NCAA title since the early 70s is astounding to me

< urge to kill rising >

blackwidow

redice

blackwidow

redice

blackwidow

billhoward
It is now 11 years since the last ECAC title for Cornell. Three titles the last 25 years. Previous worst single gap, 1986-1996, 10 years. The current drought includes three trips to the title game and even Princeton has won more recently than us.

Year   Years since ECAC title
1967	--
1968	 1 (1=no gap)
1969	 1
1970	 1
1973	 3
1980	 7
1986	 6
1996	10
1997	 1
2003	 6
2005	 2
2010	 5
2022	11

I know everyone here seems to love Schafer but do you think he is to blame for this?

In a word, "No".

Curious to know why that is? Especially the fact that no NCAA title since the early 70s is astounding to me

Just look at the job he did recovering from the mess that the Ivy League left him (2020-2021). No titles since the early 70's? That can be said for most of the Ivy schools. Has he made the NCAA's often? Yes. Moral: An NCAA title is a long shot for most Ivys. I'm accepting of this but hope they can do it one more time in my lifetime. Mike gives them a good chance at that. And, let's not forget the 2019-2020 team that was in a good position to make a run at a title.

Harvard won it in 88 though and Yale won it in 2013 or 14 though. I understand they have the prestige factor but cornell def gets much more support from the school and fanbase. Also, dont we have somewhat of lower admissions standards when it comes to the academic side of things, which give us a greater talent pool to choose from? Also, im always suspiciois of the ECAC teams when they are ranked high in pairwise. That is to say, i wasnt sure if Cornell would have actually made a credible run in 19-20

I believe it was 1989 for Harvard. If that's the only Ivy League NCAA Champions (I didn't confirm this), that shows, again, that an NCAA championship for an Ivy League school is difficult to accomplish and makes me worry less about CU not winning it all. To me, the ECAC title is where it's at. Yes, I know that it's been 11 years since one of those. But, I still support Mike.

As an aside, when CU was still playing the "slug-it-out" game (while that rest of college hockey was opening the game up), I was one of those who hoped that Mike would leave. But, to his credit, Mike has changed their playing style and didn't seem to miss a beat. Another credit for Mike! I was clearly wrong.

redice

blackwidow

redice

blackwidow

redice

blackwidow

billhoward
It is now 11 years since the last ECAC title for Cornell. Three titles the last 25 years. Previous worst single gap, 1986-1996, 10 years. The current drought includes three trips to the title game and even Princeton has won more recently than us.

Year   Years since ECAC title
1967	--
1968	 1 (1=no gap)
1969	 1
1970	 1
1973	 3
1980	 7
1986	 6
1996	10
1997	 1
2003	 6
2005	 2
2010	 5
2022	11

I know everyone here seems to love Schafer but do you think he is to blame for this?

In a word, "No".

Curious to know why that is? Especially the fact that no NCAA title since the early 70s is astounding to me

Just look at the job he did recovering from the mess that the Ivy League left him (2020-2021). No titles since the early 70's? That can be said for most of the Ivy schools. Has he made the NCAA's often? Yes. Moral: An NCAA title is a long shot for most Ivys. I'm accepting of this but hope they can do it one more time in my lifetime. Mike gives them a good chance at that. And, let's not forget the 2019-2020 team that was in a good position to make a run at a title.

Harvard won it in 88 though and Yale won it in 2013 or 14 though. I understand they have the prestige factor but cornell def gets much more support from the school and fanbase. Also, dont we have somewhat of lower admissions standards when it comes to the academic side of things, which give us a greater talent pool to choose from? Also, im always suspiciois of the ECAC teams when they are ranked high in pairwise. That is to say, i wasnt sure if Cornell would have actually made a credible run in 19-20

I believe it was 1989 for Harvard. If that's the only Ivy League NCAA Champions (I didn't confirm this), that shows, again, that an NCAA championship for an Ivy League school is difficult to accomplish and makes me worry less about CU not winning it all. To me, the ECAC title is where it's at. Yes, I know that it's been 11 years since one of those. But, I still support Mike.

As an aside, when CU was still playing the "slug-it-out" game (while that rest of college hockey was opening the game up), I was one of those who hoped that Mike would leave. But, to his credit, Mike has changed their playing style and didn't seem to miss a beat. Another credit for Mike! I was clearly wrong.

Does the fact that Yale won it in 2013 doesnt change your view on this? That two ivy teams have won the NCAA title...

we had solid chances how many times in the last 20-30 yrs.. you have to get there to have a chance. And its hockey here often the better team doesnt win, even the better team in any single game doesnt always win.

we havent had the highest high that some teams have had, we also dont have the same support from the school some of the other ivies have and we have the worst location. but we have been on the cusp many times. A couple got taken by some strange calls on the ice. some we played poorly at the wrong time. some times the other teams just played better, and recently we were the best team and never go to play at all.

For anyone with more time and energy than I have, I wonder what the winning percentage for each team in the conference is for the last 10 or 15 or 20 or so years.

I bet we're first. Maybe Q has us beat over the last 10?

blackwidow

redice

blackwidow

redice

blackwidow

redice

blackwidow

billhoward
It is now 11 years since the last ECAC title for Cornell. Three titles the last 25 years. Previous worst single gap, 1986-1996, 10 years. The current drought includes three trips to the title game and even Princeton has won more recently than us.

Year   Years since ECAC title
1967	--
1968	 1 (1=no gap)
1969	 1
1970	 1
1973	 3
1980	 7
1986	 6
1996	10
1997	 1
2003	 6
2005	 2
2010	 5
2022	11

I know everyone here seems to love Schafer but do you think he is to blame for this?

In a word, "No".

Curious to know why that is? Especially the fact that no NCAA title since the early 70s is astounding to me

Just look at the job he did recovering from the mess that the Ivy League left him (2020-2021). No titles since the early 70's? That can be said for most of the Ivy schools. Has he made the NCAA's often? Yes. Moral: An NCAA title is a long shot for most Ivys. I'm accepting of this but hope they can do it one more time in my lifetime. Mike gives them a good chance at that. And, let's not forget the 2019-2020 team that was in a good position to make a run at a title.

Harvard won it in 88 though and Yale won it in 2013 or 14 though. I understand they have the prestige factor but cornell def gets much more support from the school and fanbase. Also, dont we have somewhat of lower admissions standards when it comes to the academic side of things, which give us a greater talent pool to choose from? Also, im always suspiciois of the ECAC teams when they are ranked high in pairwise. That is to say, i wasnt sure if Cornell would have actually made a credible run in 19-20

I believe it was 1989 for Harvard. If that's the only Ivy League NCAA Champions (I didn't confirm this), that shows, again, that an NCAA championship for an Ivy League school is difficult to accomplish and makes me worry less about CU not winning it all. To me, the ECAC title is where it's at. Yes, I know that it's been 11 years since one of those. But, I still support Mike.

As an aside, when CU was still playing the "slug-it-out" game (while that rest of college hockey was opening the game up), I was one of those who hoped that Mike would leave. But, to his credit, Mike has changed their playing style and didn't seem to miss a beat. Another credit for Mike! I was clearly wrong.

Does the fact that Yale won it in 2013 doesnt change your view on this? That two ivy teams have won the NCAA title...

No, it doesn't... So Yale & Harvard have won NCAA titles in the past 50 years. That means roughly 3/4 of the Ivies have not. Those Nat'l Champ/Ivies were an anomaly. I'll bet Mike Schafer's Cornell teams have out performed that group of 3/4 Ivy. Can we please end this discussion?

Yale had one or two uncommonly good recruiting classes and cashed in their rare chance and won a title out of the 15 seed in 2013. Harvard won once in 1985 when Schafer was still a player.

Cornell has been in the tournament mix far more often than Yale and has had more postseason success during Schafer's tenure than Harvard, who treats every tournament like it's the Beanpot. In a game with as much parity as college hockey has it's a bummer but not a huge shock that we are one of the many teams that have qualified for the tournament but not won a national title in 50 years. I don't think there is some secret formula that other teams have discovered but Cornell hasn't. Schafer assembled the best team in the country in 2020 and lost in a massive upset to COVID.

blackwidow

redice

blackwidow

redice

blackwidow

redice

blackwidow

billhoward
It is now 11 years since the last ECAC title for Cornell. Three titles the last 25 years. Previous worst single gap, 1986-1996, 10 years. The current drought includes three trips to the title game and even Princeton has won more recently than us.

Year   Years since ECAC title
1967	--
1968	 1 (1=no gap)
1969	 1
1970	 1
1973	 3
1980	 7
1986	 6
1996	10
1997	 1
2003	 6
2005	 2
2010	 5
2022	11

I know everyone here seems to love Schafer but do you think he is to blame for this?

In a word, "No".

Curious to know why that is? Especially the fact that no NCAA title since the early 70s is astounding to me

Just look at the job he did recovering from the mess that the Ivy League left him (2020-2021). No titles since the early 70's? That can be said for most of the Ivy schools. Has he made the NCAA's often? Yes. Moral: An NCAA title is a long shot for most Ivys. I'm accepting of this but hope they can do it one more time in my lifetime. Mike gives them a good chance at that. And, let's not forget the 2019-2020 team that was in a good position to make a run at a title.

Harvard won it in 88 though and Yale won it in 2013 or 14 though. I understand they have the prestige factor but cornell def gets much more support from the school and fanbase. Also, dont we have somewhat of lower admissions standards when it comes to the academic side of things, which give us a greater talent pool to choose from? Also, im always suspiciois of the ECAC teams when they are ranked high in pairwise. That is to say, i wasnt sure if Cornell would have actually made a credible run in 19-20

I believe it was 1989 for Harvard. If that's the only Ivy League NCAA Champions (I didn't confirm this), that shows, again, that an NCAA championship for an Ivy League school is difficult to accomplish and makes me worry less about CU not winning it all. To me, the ECAC title is where it's at. Yes, I know that it's been 11 years since one of those. But, I still support Mike.

As an aside, when CU was still playing the "slug-it-out" game (while that rest of college hockey was opening the game up), I was one of those who hoped that Mike would leave. But, to his credit, Mike has changed their playing style and didn't seem to miss a beat. Another credit for Mike! I was clearly wrong.

Does the fact that Yale won it in 2013 doesnt change your view on this? That two ivy teams have won the NCAA title...

I believe Yale was something like 15th in the PWR that year, and just squeaked in--really something of a fluke that they won it.

Dafatone
For anyone with more time and energy than I have, I wonder what the winning percentage for each team in the conference is for the last 10 or 15 or 20 or so years.

I bet we're first. Maybe Q has us beat over the last 10?

I have not put 2022 in yet, but here's 2012-2021:

Team		 GP	  W	  L	 T	 GF	 GA	  GM	Pts	 Pct	 GFA	 GAA	  GMA
Quinnipiac	216	130	 55	31	678	450	 228	291	.674	3.14	2.08	 1.06
Cornell		198	109	 53	36	533	405	 128	254	.641	2.69	2.05	 0.65
Clarkson	212	103	 79	30	571	505	  66	236	.557	2.69	2.38	 0.31
Union		198	103	 72	23	597	496	 101	229	.578	3.02	2.51	 0.51
Harvard		198	 94	 70	34	605	491	 114	222	.561	3.06	2.48	 0.58
Yale		198	 96	 80	22	561	500	  61	214	.540	2.83	2.53	 0.31
Colgate		216	 83	102	31	510	591	 -81	197	.456	2.36	2.74	-0.38
Dartmouth	198	 85	 94	19	521	604	 -83	189	.477	2.63	3.05	-0.42
St. Lawrence	212	 75	113	24	540	623	 -83	174	.410	2.55	2.94	-0.39
RPI		198	 73	100	25	470	552	 -82	171	.432	2.37	2.79	-0.41
Brown		198	 54	115	29	432	601	-169	137	.346	2.18	3.04	-0.85
Princeton	198	 51	123	24	458	648	-190	126	.318	2.31	3.27	-0.96

scoop85

blackwidow

redice

blackwidow

redice

blackwidow

redice

blackwidow

billhoward
It is now 11 years since the last ECAC title for Cornell. Three titles the last 25 years. Previous worst single gap, 1986-1996, 10 years. The current drought includes three trips to the title game and even Princeton has won more recently than us.

Year   Years since ECAC title
1967	--
1968	 1 (1=no gap)
1969	 1
1970	 1
1973	 3
1980	 7
1986	 6
1996	10
1997	 1
2003	 6
2005	 2
2010	 5
2022	11

I know everyone here seems to love Schafer but do you think he is to blame for this?

In a word, "No".

Curious to know why that is? Especially the fact that no NCAA title since the early 70s is astounding to me

Just look at the job he did recovering from the mess that the Ivy League left him (2020-2021). No titles since the early 70's? That can be said for most of the Ivy schools. Has he made the NCAA's often? Yes. Moral: An NCAA title is a long shot for most Ivys. I'm accepting of this but hope they can do it one more time in my lifetime. Mike gives them a good chance at that. And, let's not forget the 2019-2020 team that was in a good position to make a run at a title.

Harvard won it in 88 though and Yale won it in 2013 or 14 though. I understand they have the prestige factor but cornell def gets much more support from the school and fanbase. Also, dont we have somewhat of lower admissions standards when it comes to the academic side of things, which give us a greater talent pool to choose from? Also, im always suspiciois of the ECAC teams when they are ranked high in pairwise. That is to say, i wasnt sure if Cornell would have actually made a credible run in 19-20

I believe it was 1989 for Harvard. If that's the only Ivy League NCAA Champions (I didn't confirm this), that shows, again, that an NCAA championship for an Ivy League school is difficult to accomplish and makes me worry less about CU not winning it all. To me, the ECAC title is where it's at. Yes, I know that it's been 11 years since one of those. But, I still support Mike.

As an aside, when CU was still playing the "slug-it-out" game (while that rest of college hockey was opening the game up), I was one of those who hoped that Mike would leave. But, to his credit, Mike has changed their playing style and didn't seem to miss a beat. Another credit for Mike! I was clearly wrong.

Does the fact that Yale won it in 2013 doesnt change your view on this? That two ivy teams have won the NCAA title...

I believe Yale was something like 15th in the PWR that year, and just squeaked in--really something of a fluke that they won it.

That Yale team may not have been the best during the regular season that year, or as offensively potent as its predecessors, but their run was legit. That team was speedy and fairly solid defensively. There's a reason they had so many OT wins against good teams, including two in the NCAA's

Iceberg
That Yale team may not have been the best during the regular season that year, or as offensively potent as its predecessors, but their run was legit. That team was speedy and fairly solid defensively. There's a reason they had so many OT wins against good teams, including two in the NCAA's

Not to mention that Yale NCAA win came at the end of their stretch of great teams.

They were a solid NCAA Titleist, just as Union was. And the Harvard and RPI teams that won before them were among the greatest college hockey teams of all time.

When you consider what he is up against, Schafer is arguably the greatest coach in college hockey. No scholarships, no grad transfers, worse financial aid than the other Ivies, an Ivy League doesn’t give a shit about its athletes. Case in point: last year, the Ivies didn’t play while 51 other programs did.

Despite all this, Schafer has accomplished NCAA appearances in over half of his seasons (no other ECAC coach can say that), three number 1 seeds (no other ECAC coach can say that), and more ECAC championships than any other school during his tenure. No other ECAC school has experienced this level of sustained success over the past 25 years.

With that said, the lack of tournament success over the past decade is extremely depressing. 2019-20 was IMO the best team of the Schafer era and it didn’t get a postseason. Much of that team was still in tact the following season, which the Ivy League canceled. In American sports, fans care about championships. While Cornell was the clear leader in that regard through 2010, since then Yale, Union, Quinnipiac, and Harvard have all won national championships, made multiple title games, or made the frozen four while Cornell has no ECAC championships or frozen fours. I think going forward, Cornell has as good a chance of accomplishing these goals as any other ECAC program, but the randomness of hockey and the advances of rival programs means it could be a very long time before they happen. That’s no knock against Schafer, just the reality of hockey and what he’s up against.

BearLover
When you consider what he is up against, Schafer is arguably the greatest coach in college hockey. No scholarships, no grad transfers, worse financial aid than the other Ivies, an Ivy League doesn’t give a shit about its athletes. Case in point: last year, the Ivies didn’t play while 51 other programs did.

Despite all this, Schafer has accomplished NCAA appearances in over half of his seasons (no other ECAC coach can say that), three number 1 seeds (no other ECAC coach can say that), and more ECAC championships than any other school during his tenure. No other ECAC school has experienced this level of sustained success over the past 25 years.

With that said, the lack of tournament success over the past decade is extremely depressing. 2019-20 was IMO the best team of the Schafer era and it didn’t get a postseason. Much of that team was still in tact the following season, which the Ivy League canceled. In American sports, fans care about championships. While Cornell was the clear leader in that regard through 2010, since then Yale, Union, Quinnipiac, and Harvard have all won national championships, made multiple title games, or made the frozen four while Cornell has no ECAC championships or frozen fours. I think going forward, Cornell has as good a chance of accomplishing these goals as any other ECAC program, but the randomness of hockey and the advances of rival programs means it could be a very long time before they happen. That’s no knock against Schafer, just the reality of hockey and what he’s up against.

Can one or a group of alums start a foundation to make the cornell program financially more attractive to potential recruits? Not sure how it would work with the NCAA rules. (Maybe a company of sorts to help them profit from their likeness and image rights etc that almost guarantee them getting paid in meaningful ways)

We've been talking about how few Ivy teams have won the NCAAs since 1970. We're in the ECAC as well as the Ivy League and there's also RPI and Union, neither of them academic slouches, who've won titles. I would like to see Clarkson win Saturday over Quinnipiac and both go to the NCAAs. (Clarkson may have to win both games to go.) Q has a chance to go all the way. We may not like Q but they are in our (athletic) league and an NCAA title benefits all 12 schools. I'd root for Q every step of the way until the point they come against Clarkson. You want another title for North Dakota or Minnesota?

BearLover
When you consider what he is up against, Schafer is arguably the greatest coach in college hockey. No scholarships, no grad transfers, worse financial aid than the other Ivies, an Ivy League doesn’t give a shit about its athletes. Case in point: last year, the Ivies didn’t play while 51 other programs did.

Despite all this, Schafer has accomplished NCAA appearances in over half of his seasons (no other ECAC coach can say that), three number 1 seeds (no other ECAC coach can say that), and more ECAC championships than any other school during his tenure. No other ECAC school has experienced this level of sustained success over the past 25 years.

With that said, the lack of tournament success over the past decade is extremely depressing. 2019-20 was IMO the best team of the Schafer era and it didn’t get a postseason. Much of that team was still in tact the following season, which the Ivy League canceled. In American sports, fans care about championships. While Cornell was the clear leader in that regard through 2010, since then Yale, Union, Quinnipiac, and Harvard have all won national championships, made multiple title games, or made the frozen four while Cornell has no ECAC championships or frozen fours. I think going forward, Cornell has as good a chance of accomplishing these goals as any other ECAC program, but the randomness of hockey and the advances of rival programs means it could be a very long time before they happen. That’s no knock against Schafer, just the reality of hockey and what he’s up against.

This is well put overall. I imagine a Clarkson fan reading this thread and shaking their head. (But also at the same time, enjoying the schadenfreude.)

Look. Michigan is considered by many to be one of the most successful hallmark franchises of all time. Red Berenson is a giant of the sport and a legend. Red took the Wolverines to the NCAA Tournament 23 times (22 consecutive). He won it all TWICE out of those 23 chances, and both finals were won in overtime. It's really hard to win it all, even if you're a big jock factory with scholarships and even then it takes a lot of bounces to go your way. Nevermind the Ivies, the current ECAC as a league can only claim 4 titles in 35 years of play since the split. Schafer-led teams have given us more years to dream it's possible than not. Throw in the incredible job Doug Derraugh has done in shaping the women's program, and I'm just plain proud of being able to watch these teams during this era. I hope it will happen someday, and that's all I can do.

billhoward
We've been talking about how few Ivy teams have won the NCAAs since 1970. We're in the ECAC as well as the Ivy League and there's also RPI and Union, neither of them academic slouches, who've won titles. I would like to see Clarkson win Saturday over Quinnipiac and both go to the NCAAs. (Clarkson may have to win both games to go.) Q has a chance to go all the way. We may not like Q but they are in our (athletic) league and an NCAA title benefits all 12 schools. I'd root for Q every step of the way until the point they come against Clarkson. You want another title for North Dakota or Minnesota?

Correct. I’d much rather North Dakota or Minnesota win. I don’t want our direct rivals winning championships. Cornell has been good for song long (during which time teams like Q and Clarkson have largely wallowed in mediocrity) that it would absolutely suck if yet another one of our rivals won it all before we did.

BearLover

billhoward
We've been talking about how few Ivy teams have won the NCAAs since 1970. We're in the ECAC as well as the Ivy League and there's also RPI and Union, neither of them academic slouches, who've won titles. I would like to see Clarkson win Saturday over Quinnipiac and both go to the NCAAs. (Clarkson may have to win both games to go.) Q has a chance to go all the way. We may not like Q but they are in our (athletic) league and an NCAA title benefits all 12 schools. I'd root for Q every step of the way until the point they come against Clarkson. You want another title for North Dakota or Minnesota?

Correct. I’d much rather North Dakota or Minnesota win. I don’t want our direct rivals winning championships. Cornell has been good for song long (during which time teams like Q and Clarkson have largely wallowed in mediocrity) that it would absolutely suck if yet another one of our rivals won it all before we did.

Mind-boggling logic. We saw this same bizarre thinking when Yale won it all. How dominant they've become since.

Go ECAC! Always.

RichH

BearLover
I think going forward, Cornell has as good a chance of accomplishing these goals as any other ECAC program, but the randomness of hockey and the advances of rival programs means it could be a very long time before they happen. That’s no knock against Schafer, just the reality of hockey and what he’s up against.

Look. Michigan is considered by many to be one of the most successful hallmark franchises of all time. Red Berenson is a giant of the sport and a legend. Red took the Wolverines to the NCAA Tournament 23 times (22 consecutive). He won it all TWICE out of those 23 chances, and both finals were won in overtime. It's really hard to win it all ... Schafer-led teams have given us more years to dream it's possible than not. Throw in the incredible job Doug Derraugh has done in shaping the women's program, and I'm just plain proud of being able to watch these teams during this era. I hope it will happen someday, and that's all I can do.

Nicely put. Randomness and luck plays such a big role. It's still fun to watch. End of Friday night's game against Colgate, as the team went off the ice and only the coaches were on the bench, Schafer turned to the crowd and gave a little waist-level hand wave. So nice.

Al DeFlorio

BearLover

billhoward
We've been talking about how few Ivy teams have won the NCAAs since 1970. We're in the ECAC as well as the Ivy League and there's also RPI and Union, neither of them academic slouches, who've won titles. I would like to see Clarkson win Saturday over Quinnipiac and both go to the NCAAs. (Clarkson may have to win both games to go.) Q has a chance to go all the way. We may not like Q but they are in our (athletic) league and an NCAA title benefits all 12 schools. I'd root for Q every step of the way until the point they come against Clarkson. You want another title for North Dakota or Minnesota?

Correct. I’d much rather North Dakota or Minnesota win. I don’t want our direct rivals winning championships. Cornell has been good for song long (during which time teams like Q and Clarkson have largely wallowed in mediocrity) that it would absolutely suck if yet another one of our rivals won it all before we did.

Mind-boggling logic. We saw this same bizarre thinking when Yale won it all. How dominant they've become since.

Go ECAC! Always.

I didn’t say anything above about programs becoming dominant. I said it’s excruciating to watch your biggest rivals, who are nowhere near as deserving, win it all before you do. Also, sports fans root against their rivals. It’s pretty simple logic (to the extent sports fandom is logical) that carries over to most other fandoms. Do Giants fans root for the Eagles, Cowboys, and Washington Commanders after they’ve been eliminated? No, they obviously do not do that because they are normal sports fans.

Though, since you brought up dominance, maybe we should revisit the “rising tide lifts all boats” theory that everyone on this forum was positing when Yale won. Has Cornell won more ECAC championships and NCAA games before, or after, the rise of Yale, Union, Q?

As a member of the class of '64 I was privileged to enjoy the first and most spectacularly successful decade of Cornell hockey. Those early teams had nowhere to go but up, and did they ever! The past few seasons of Cornell hockey have placed the team in a similar position. The new decade should be a beauty!

look at bball Gonz has probably been the most consistent high ranked team other than maybe duke/kansas for about 20 yrs and has nothing to show for it in a sport where the top teams do often win it . Hockey the gap is smaller and even pretty bad teams beat really good ones all the time. the 40th best hockey team would be like the 150th best bball team and you rarely see that upset in bball but you see it all the time in hockey.. low scoring games lend itself more to luck.

BearLover

Al DeFlorio

BearLover

billhoward
We've been talking about how few Ivy teams have won the NCAAs since 1970. We're in the ECAC as well as the Ivy League and there's also RPI and Union, neither of them academic slouches, who've won titles. I would like to see Clarkson win Saturday over Quinnipiac and both go to the NCAAs. (Clarkson may have to win both games to go.) Q has a chance to go all the way. We may not like Q but they are in our (athletic) league and an NCAA title benefits all 12 schools. I'd root for Q every step of the way until the point they come against Clarkson. You want another title for North Dakota or Minnesota?

Correct. I’d much rather North Dakota or Minnesota win. I don’t want our direct rivals winning championships. Cornell has been good for song long (during which time teams like Q and Clarkson have largely wallowed in mediocrity) that it would absolutely suck if yet another one of our rivals won it all before we did.

Mind-boggling logic. We saw this same bizarre thinking when Yale won it all. How dominant they've become since.

Go ECAC! Always.

I didn’t say anything above about programs becoming dominant. I said it’s excruciating to watch your biggest rivals, who are nowhere near as deserving, win it all before you do. Also, sports fans root against their rivals. It’s pretty simple logic (to the extent sports fandom is logical) that carries over to most other fandoms. Do Giants fans root for the Eagles, Cowboys, and Washington Commanders after they’ve been eliminated? No, they obviously do not do that because they are normal sports fans.

Though, since you brought up dominance, maybe we should revisit the “rising tide lifts all boats” theory that everyone on this forum was positing when Yale won. Has Cornell won more ECAC championships and NCAA games before, or after, the rise of Yale, Union, Q?

You made that impassioned speech about Yale at the time. It was bullshit then.

It's not about "raising all boats." It's about the perception of your league. I want our league to do well. Always. That makes our program look better. I don't indulge myself in petty, envy-driven resentments. There is no downside to an ECAC team winning on the national scene.

Al DeFlorio
It's not about "raising all boats." It's about the perception of your league. I want our league to do well. Always. That makes our program look better. I don't indulge myself in petty, envy-driven resentments. There is no downside to an ECAC team winning on the national scene.

In the Ivy League, the rising tide lifts all yachts.

BearLover

billhoward
We've been talking about how few Ivy teams have won the NCAAs since 1970. We're in the ECAC as well as the Ivy League and there's also RPI and Union, neither of them academic slouches, who've won titles. I would like to see Clarkson win Saturday over Quinnipiac and both go to the NCAAs. (Clarkson may have to win both games to go.) Q has a chance to go all the way. We may not like Q but they are in our (athletic) league and an NCAA title benefits all 12 schools. I'd root for Q every step of the way until the point they come against Clarkson. You want another title for North Dakota or Minnesota?

Correct. I’d much rather North Dakota or Minnesota win. I don’t want our direct rivals winning championships. Cornell has been good for song long (during which time teams like Q and Clarkson have largely wallowed in mediocrity) that it would absolutely suck if yet another one of our rivals won it all before we did.

I can see what you are saying, I simply don't agree.

I rooted like hell for Harvard over Minnesota in 89, and for every ECAC team in the NC$$ since. The wogs begin at Calais. Go ECAC.

billhoward
We've been talking about how few Ivy teams have won the NCAAs since 1970. We're in the ECAC as well as the Ivy League and there's also RPI and Union, neither of them academic slouches, who've won titles. I would like to see Clarkson win Saturday over Quinnipiac and both go to the NCAAs. (Clarkson may have to win both games to go.) Q has a chance to go all the way. We may not like Q but they are in our (athletic) league and an NCAA title benefits all 12 schools. I'd root for Q every step of the way until the point they come against Clarkson. You want another title for North Dakota or Minnesota?

I think it's just a matter of personal preference. Some people hate rooting for rivals, some people prefer rivals winning to other teams we have no connection to.

Personally, it varies by team. Despite recent crushing losses, I have no hard feelings towards Clarkson. Storied hockey history, good fan support. Q is annoying and I might root against them, depending on who they play. Harvard... tough pill to swallow. Would root for them over NoDak and their stupid arena (where we swept them] named after a guy who threw birthday parties for Hitler. Dartmouth? No way. Rooting for just about anyone over Dartmouth.

If you'd like to support the team financially:

Mike Schafer email
Please read below for the opportunity that exists for Cornell Hockey today. If you have never given to Cornell Hockey, you can have a huge impact by starting today so that we can meet our donor challenge. Thank you to the Oliver family for their generosity and this tremendous opportunity for Cornell Hockey.

Bill and Carole Oliver `64, their daughter, Jill `88, along with Rick `69 and his daughters, Kim `91 and Carrie `94 have offered a last minute Giving Day Challenge. They will match all gifts 2:1 up to $25,000 for a total of $50,000. Additionally, if we get 125 donors, they’ll give another $50,000 for a total gift of $100,000 if both challenges are met.

Thank you to one of the great Big Red Hockey Families! Your support is appreciated. Let’s crush these challenges!!! I hope you’ll stay tuned to follow our progress.

Click here to make your gift.

[givingday.cornell.edu]

There's a $10,000 match challenge for the women's team as well.

you want to see some interesting numbers look at the money each sport is pulling in.

rowing squash at the top of the list with sprint football and baseball

People can root for whomever they want. If you want to root for Quinnipiac or Harvard, for whatever strange reason, be my guest. The success of other ECAC programs clearly isn’t helping Cornell, though.

Getting back to the original topic...

What strikes me as interesting is how similarly this team fared compared to the 2018-2019 team, the team right before #1 ranked 2019-2020 team.

This team went 18-10-4, the 18-19 team went 21-11-4, with a 4-3 record in the playoffs.

This year's team went 12-6-4 in ECAC action, the 2018-2019 went 13-5-4.

Other key comparisons
PP conversion .169 vs .222
PK 81.2% vs 85.3%
GPG 3,1 vs 3.0
Shot Percentage .108 vs .102

Key differences between the two teams was that the 2018-2019 team was better on special teams, and I would guess that our goals per game is probably skewed slightly due to the RPI game.

I think our key areas to address moving forward is special teams and increasing our shot percentage. Goaltending, the big question mark coming into the season, was not really an issue. Given that talent returning and coming in, I am quite optimistic about the future.

We had like 75+ shots vs colgate game 3 missed the net too many times and got too many blocked in addition to the killer that led to the breakaway.

thats a lot of puck control to not even get 2 goals and we did it multiple times vs that team.

I can't bring myself to root for a league, let alone an opponent. Harkness said it best one night at Colgate when Cornell was clobbering the home team. The coaches were walking side-by-side behind the teams between periods through a gap in the bleachers leading to the dressing room. Seated on the bleacher above this gap I clearly heard the Colgate coach suggest Ned should tell his players to "ease up", to which Harkness replied. "Go **** yourself! THAT's the kind of hockey spirit I appreciate, and save the statistical analysis for tea parties.

margolism
Getting back to the original topic...

What strikes me as interesting is how similarly this team fared compared to the 2018-2019 team, the team right before #1 ranked 2019-2020 team.

This team went 18-10-4, the 18-19 team went 21-11-4, with a 4-3 record in the playoffs.

This year's team went 12-6-4 in ECAC action, the 2018-2019 went 13-5-4.

Other key comparisons
PP conversion .169 vs .222
PK 81.2% vs 85.3%
GPG 3,1 vs 3.0
Shot Percentage .108 vs .102

Key differences between the two teams was that the 2018-2019 team was better on special teams, and I would guess that our goals per game is probably skewed slightly due to the RPI game.

I think our key areas to address moving forward is special teams and increasing our shot percentage. Goaltending, the big question mark coming into the season, was not really an issue. Given that talent returning and coming in, I am quite optimistic about the future.

This year’s team went 13-10-9, counting OT and SO outcomes as ties. The record you’ve citing counts OT wins as regulation wins. (Not your fault, CHN/the media keeps doing this for some reason.) In the ECAC, the team went 10-8-7, including the ECAC playoffs. Our save % this year was .911, lowest since 2006-07.* I’m generally optimistic about the future too, but this year was a big dropoff.

*technically, the 2012-13 team had a .909 sv%, but discounting backup goalie Omar Kanji getting shelled by Q in relief in a 10-0 loss, it was .917.

BearLover

billhoward
We've been talking about how few Ivy teams have won the NCAAs since 1970. We're in the ECAC as well as the Ivy League and there's also RPI and Union, neither of them academic slouches, who've won titles. I would like to see Clarkson win Saturday over Quinnipiac and both go to the NCAAs. (Clarkson may have to win both games to go.) Q has a chance to go all the way. We may not like Q but they are in our (athletic) league and an NCAA title benefits all 12 schools. I'd root for Q every step of the way until the point they come against Clarkson. You want another title for North Dakota or Minnesota?

Correct. I’d much rather North Dakota or Minnesota win. I don’t want our direct rivals winning championships. Cornell has been good for song long (during which time teams like Q and Clarkson have largely wallowed in mediocrity) that it would absolutely suck if yet another one of our rivals won it all before we did.

I, on the other hand, will root for Clarkson, Colgate, and even Harvard against everybody else in the NCAAs, but I will root hard against Quinnipiac in any game they play. The year they played Yale for the title, I learned more than I wanted to know about the institution, which is a corporate marketing experiment disguised as an institution of higher learning. I don't consider them a rival, and I don't want them in our league.

BearLover
People can root for whomever they want. If you want to root for Quinnipiac or Harvard, for whatever strange reason, be my guest. The success of other ECAC programs clearly isn’t helping Cornell, though.

RPI and Union winning national titles, ditto Harvard and Yale, tells recruits it's a strong league and worth playing in. And I think the Quinnipiac rink is pretty nice.

jtwcornell91

BearLover

billhoward
We've been talking about how few Ivy teams have won the NCAAs since 1970. We're in the ECAC as well as the Ivy League and there's also RPI and Union, neither of them academic slouches, who've won titles. I would like to see Clarkson win Saturday over Quinnipiac and both go to the NCAAs. (Clarkson may have to win both games to go.) Q has a chance to go all the way. We may not like Q but they are in our (athletic) league and an NCAA title benefits all 12 schools. I'd root for Q every step of the way until the point they come against Clarkson. You want another title for North Dakota or Minnesota?

Correct. I’d much rather North Dakota or Minnesota win. I don’t want our direct rivals winning championships. Cornell has been good for song long (during which time teams like Q and Clarkson have largely wallowed in mediocrity) that it would absolutely suck if yet another one of our rivals won it all before we did.

I, on the other hand, will root for Clarkson, Colgate, and even Harvard against everybody else in the NCAAs, but I will root hard against Quinnipiac in any game they play. The year they played Yale for the title, I learned more than I wanted to know about the institution, which is a corporate marketing experiment disguised as an institution of higher learning. I don't consider them a rival, and I don't want them in our league.

Thanks. I needed that.

Fuque Queue!

it's all just vibes. but i tend to agree with bearlover that having a rival win while i'm waiting bothers me whereas i don't give a shit at all when a non-cornell team i don't spend much time thinking about wins. similarly, i want ivy hoops teams to win a first round game once in a while but i don't want any team that isn't us getting to the sweet 16.

ugarte
it's all just vibes. but i tend to agree with bearlover that having a rival win while i'm waiting bothers me whereas i don't give a shit at all when a non-cornell team i don't spend much time thinking about wins. similarly, i want ivy hoops teams to win a first round game once in a while but i don't want any team that isn't us getting to the sweet 16.

I'm missing this gene. Rising tide and all that. Go ECAC!

Trotsky

ugarte
it's all just vibes. but i tend to agree with bearlover that having a rival win while i'm waiting bothers me whereas i don't give a shit at all when a non-cornell team i don't spend much time thinking about wins. similarly, i want ivy hoops teams to win a first round game once in a while but i don't want any team that isn't us getting to the sweet 16.

I'm missing this gene. Rising tide and all that. Go ECAC!

i figured you were just missing a chromosome.

I would root for Team ISIS against Quinnipiac.

CU2007
I would root for Team ISIS against Quinnipiac.

This roughly sums up my feelings towards the Atlanta Braves.

jtwcornell91
I don't consider them a rival, and I don't want them in our league.

Agreed, and I’d like to see RIT replace them!
.

3-1/2 hours before the end of Giving Day, the top-earning fund is athletics, $3 million-plus, 3X the runner-up Arts College, although Arts College gifts were bigger, $870 to $555, on average. I kind of feel good about that, I kind of feel bad about that.

Dafatone

CU2007
I would root for Team ISIS against Quinnipiac.

This roughly sums up my feelings towards the Atlanta Braves.

YES! YES YES YES!!!

They are the only team I feel traditional hatred for. Not even Harvard, who beat us 18-2-2 at one point, provokes this from me.

I am assuming a fellow Met fan?

ugarte

Trotsky

ugarte
it's all just vibes. but i tend to agree with bearlover that having a rival win while i'm waiting bothers me whereas i don't give a shit at all when a non-cornell team i don't spend much time thinking about wins. similarly, i want ivy hoops teams to win a first round game once in a while but i don't want any team that isn't us getting to the sweet 16.

I'm missing this gene. Rising tide and all that. Go ECAC!

i figured you were just missing a chromosome.

That's not very nice.

billhoward
3-1/2 hours before the end of Giving Day, the top-earning fund is athletics, $3 million-plus, 3X the runner-up Arts College, although Arts College gifts were bigger, $870 to $555, on average. I kind of feel good about that, I kind of feel bad about that.

Me too, but for a different reason.

Tax them more.

Trotsky

Dafatone

CU2007
I would root for Team ISIS against Quinnipiac.

This roughly sums up my feelings towards the Atlanta Braves.

YES! YES YES YES!!!

They are the only team I feel traditional hatred for. Not even Harvard, who beat us 18-2-2 at one point, provokes this from me.

I am assuming a fellow Met fan?

Indeed. Other team hatreds come and go. Dallas Cowboys in the 90s, Duke basketball in the 00s. Braves hatred is eternal.

The chop is racist, they built their team on human trafficking, and the Ozzie Albies contract should be voided as unconscionable.

Agree. Harvard's team in 1989 was outstanding and they still needed some luck to win it. Yale was incredibly lucky to win in 2013 (yes, they were good, but def not the best team in the nation or even the ECAC that year). We just haven't had the lucky breaks.

Dafatone
Indeed. Other team hatreds come and go. Dallas Cowboys in the 90s, Duke basketball in the 00s. Braves hatred is eternal.

The chop is racist, they built their team on human trafficking, and the Ozzie Albies contract should be voided as unconscionable.

Cowboys in the 70s. Pedo State. USMNT Hoops since we bought the Olympics.

I loathe Bettman's hot climate hockey garbage teams but that's not hatred, it's disdain.

gored
Agree. Harvard's team in 1989 was outstanding and they still needed some luck to win it. Yale was incredibly lucky to win in 2013 (yes, they were good, but def not the best team in the nation or even the ECAC that year). We just haven't had the lucky breaks.

Indeed, I think we recently had the unluckiest break of all. I am not overwhelmingly superstitious; I don’t believe in karma, what have you. But I do believe in balance and the law of large numbers. It’s time for puck luck to bend the world in our favor again.

This wasn’t our year. Considering the returners and some of the talent we just brought in, I feel next year or three years from now might be. If we get Andreev back, next year will be electric. Kovich, Ertel, Kempf, and, especially, Psenicka were impressive. Mack could get interesting; Suda looked good in our brief introduction.

Everything comes down to goaltending. I would expect we’re bringing in he who was meant to be Galajda’s replacement next year. One of them must develop into a “Cornell goaltender”—steady, positionally impeccable, and no need for flash.

I think if we ran the probability numbers on all of Schafer's teams it's roughly 50/50 whether he has an NC$$ title by now.

All that terrible luck in QFs.

Scersk '97
Everything comes down to goaltending. I would expect we’re bringing in he who was meant to be Galajda’s replacement next year. One of them must develop into a “Cornell goaltender”—steady, positionally impeccable, and no need for flash.

Yes, but are they made or born?

I believe with the core we have now, the little (as painful as it is) we lose, and some of the guys coming in, if we got that one goalie who put in "normal" 1.71 / .925 (Dave McKee) numbers, we go to the F4 in 2023.

But while the guys this year did well, they weren't at that level, and the incoming guy Keoppel does not have promising numbers.

Having evolved from a team that wins 2-1 to a team that wins 3-2, we may have to further evolve to a team that wins 4-3.

Trotsky

Scersk '97
Everything comes down to goaltending. I would expect we’re bringing in he who was meant to be Galajda’s replacement next year. One of them must develop into a “Cornell goaltender”—steady, positionally impeccable, and no need for flash.

Yes, but are they made or born?

I believe with the core we have now, the little (as painful as it is) we lose, and some of the guys coming in, if we got that one goalie who put in "normal" 1.71 / .925 (Dave McKee) numbers, we go to the F4 in 2023.

But while the guys this year did well, they weren't at that level, and the incoming guy Keoppel does not have promising numbers.

Having evolved from a team that wins 2-1 to a team that wins 3-2, we may have to further evolve to a team that wins 4-3.

I think the big thing is more experience playing together and playing at this level. All these guys were the top skill guys in their previous leagues. At the college level, they're still skilled, but they might not all stand out the same way. Gotta get a little more used to grinding.

Scersk '97
Everything comes down to goaltending. I would expect we’re bringing in he who was meant to be Galajda’s replacement next year. One of them must develop into a “Cornell goaltender”—steady, positionally impeccable, and no need for flash.

Also, this:

Dafatone
I think the big thing is more experience playing together and playing at this level. All these guys were the top skill guys in their previous leagues. At the college level, they're still skilled, but they might not all stand out the same way. Gotta get a little more used to grinding.

I absolutely think the rest of the team will just continue to gel and develop ESP.

The only question I have is the goaltending.

Well, and the fucking special teams, but I trust the coaches to figure that out.

Keopple has played well recently (including back-to-back shutouts), & he currently has the 7th lowest goals against average in the USHL. Save percentage is in a tight band among the USHL goalies (except for 1 tender who has already been drafted).

Trotsky

Dafatone
I think the big thing is more experience playing together and playing at this level. All these guys were the top skill guys in their previous leagues. At the college level, they're still skilled, but they might not all stand out the same way. Gotta get a little more used to grinding.

I absolutely think the rest of the team will just continue to gel and develop ESP.

The only question I have is the goaltending.

Well, and the fucking special teams, but I trust the coaches to figure that out.

While Ian Shane did seem to be best of our three choices this year. I don't believe any of the three are championship caliber at the D1 level.

For Shane to be successful, he absolutely HAS to improve his control of rebounds!

I feel like every year I have to chime in on a topic like this - just to call out the new random pinhead who questions whether Mike Schafer is a "problem"

It's so dumb as to be laughable. Are these people random bots that were sent out like a virus about 20 years ago, to just rise to the surface one per each new offseason?

I'll assume this is just an 18-year old kid who just needs to be educated. Or a bot.

Quora is where one can go to ask unthinking questions on a much wider range of topics than eLynah supports.

People on Quora ask, I got turned down at Penn, should I call to see if they made a mistake? Or, Could 20 WW II Tiger tanks take out a lone M1A1 Abrams if they started out a mile from each other?

adamw
I feel like every year I have to chime in on a topic like this - just to call out the new random pinhead who questions whether Mike Schafer is a "problem"

It's so dumb as to be laughable. Are these people random bots that were sent out like a virus about 20 years ago, to just rise to the surface one per each new offseason?

I'll assume this is just an 18-year old kid who just needs to be educated. Or a bot.

I thought Americans love winners, not losers. Cornell hockey to me seems like the kind of team that's always kinda in the mix but never win anything. Do you guys prefer the program to be a championship winning program every decade or two but is not a perennial NCAA qualifier or a team that qualifies for the NCAA often with nothing to show for it?

blackwidow

adamw
I feel like every year I have to chime in on a topic like this - just to call out the new random pinhead who questions whether Mike Schafer is a "problem"

It's so dumb as to be laughable. Are these people random bots that were sent out like a virus about 20 years ago, to just rise to the surface one per each new offseason?

I'll assume this is just an 18-year old kid who just needs to be educated. Or a bot.

I thought Americans love winners, not losers.

Fuck America, let's dance.

Trotsky

Dafatone
Indeed. Other team hatreds come and go. Dallas Cowboys in the 90s, Duke basketball in the 00s. Braves hatred is eternal.

The chop is racist, they built their team on human trafficking, and the Ozzie Albies contract should be voided as unconscionable.

Cowboys in the 70s. Pedo State. USMNT Hoops since we bought the Olympics.

I loathe Bettman's hot climate hockey garbage teams but that's not hatred, it's disdain.

The Cowboys are sort of eternally evil, but IMHO the Raiders were worse in the '70s (Madden notwithstanding).

Russia's hockey program has been consistently infuriating for the last 25 years or so, even (espeically) when they're pretending to play under another name.

blackwidow
I thought Americans love winners, not losers. Cornell hockey to me seems like the kind of team that's always kinda in the mix but never win anything. Do you guys prefer the program to be a championship winning program every decade or two but is not a perennial NCAA qualifier or a team that qualifies for the NCAA often with nothing to show for it?

On our phones, Siri hears then autocorrects winner to whiner. Look at game threads and it seems the longer threads dissect the games Cornell lost.

George64

jtwcornell91
I don't consider them a rival, and I don't want them in our league.

Agreed, and I’d like to see RIT replace them!
.

So say we all.

jtwcornell91

Trotsky

Dafatone
Indeed. Other team hatreds come and go. Dallas Cowboys in the 90s, Duke basketball in the 00s. Braves hatred is eternal.

The chop is racist, they built their team on human trafficking, and the Ozzie Albies contract should be voided as unconscionable.

Cowboys in the 70s. Pedo State. USMNT Hoops since we bought the Olympics.

I loathe Bettman's hot climate hockey garbage teams but that's not hatred, it's disdain.

The Cowboys are sort of eternally evil, but IMHO the Raiders were worse in the '70s (Madden notwithstanding).

Russia's hockey program has been consistently infuriating for the last 25 years or so, even (espeically) when they're pretending to play under another name.

How about, rather they're given the chance to play under another name.

Let's put blame on the offender and the enabler.

Trotsky

Scersk '97
Everything comes down to goaltending. I would expect we’re bringing in he who was meant to be Galajda’s replacement next year. One of them must develop into a “Cornell goaltender”—steady, positionally impeccable, and no need for flash.

Yes, but are they made or born?

I believe with the core we have now, the little (as painful as it is) we lose, and some of the guys coming in, if we got that one goalie who put in "normal" 1.71 / .925 (Dave McKee) numbers, we go to the F4 in 2023.

But while the guys this year did well, they weren't at that level, and the incoming guy Keoppel does not have promising numbers.

Having evolved from a team that wins 2-1 to a team that wins 3-2, we may have to further evolve to a team that wins 4-3.

Unfortunately Shane was 1.715/0.933 (CHN stats).

redice
While Ian Shane did seem to be best of our three choices this year. I don't believe any of the three are championship caliber at the D1 level.

For Shane to be successful, he absolutely HAS to improve his control of rebounds!

Totally agree with the rebound statement. It was a, and maybe the, major problem with all 3 goalies. You just can't stick save and allow it to go out anywhere near the opponents, especially in the slot.

The second facet that he needs to work on is breakaways, either during the game or in a shootout. Was there anyone who didn't cringe when they saw Colgate get a breakaway in game 3. As it unfolded I said to myself, the game's over, even before the goal scored.

but what if you actually had the actual breakaway stats to use instead of just saying he is bad at breakaways.. I know out goalies stopped a bunch as well even in shootouts.. the bigger issue we dont score on enough of our own and at the end of the year didnt generate very many,

upprdeck
but what if you actually had the actual breakaway stats to use instead of just saying he is bad at breakaways.. I know out goalies stopped a bunch as well even in shootouts.. the bigger issue we dont score on enough of our own and at the end of the year didnt generate very many,

I don't have any stats (to back it up). But, Parris Duffus was superb on breakaways! I didn't even worry when a skater came in on him, all alone, because I KNEW Parris had this!

Jim Hyla

Trotsky

Scersk '97
Everything comes down to goaltending. I would expect we’re bringing in he who was meant to be Galajda’s replacement next year. One of them must develop into a “Cornell goaltender”—steady, positionally impeccable, and no need for flash.

Yes, but are they made or born?

I believe with the core we have now, the little (as painful as it is) we lose, and some of the guys coming in, if we got that one goalie who put in "normal" 1.71 / .925 (Dave McKee) numbers, we go to the F4 in 2023.

But while the guys this year did well, they weren't at that level, and the incoming guy Keoppel does not have promising numbers.

Having evolved from a team that wins 2-1 to a team that wins 3-2, we may have to further evolve to a team that wins 4-3.

Unfortunately Shane was 1.715/0.933 (CHN stats).

Now see, here's the problem right here. Save percentage is too high...

upprdeck
but what if you actually had the actual breakaway stats to use instead of just saying he is bad at breakaways.. I know out goalies stopped a bunch as well even in shootouts.. the bigger issue we dont score on enough of our own and at the end of the year didnt generate very many,

Yes, but what if.... That's a nice way to knock down my statement, when you/I don't know anywhere that you can find breakaway stats. So if you can't find stats, you use what you remember and your feelings.

You can disagree with me, but don't imply that my statement is specious because I don't have stats, when you know that those stats are probably not anywhere to be found.

Shootouts and breakaways feel different, for some reason or another. Feels like guys score more on breakaways. Goalies have less time to know exactly what is coming compared to the very controlled setting of a shootout.

It felt like Shane didn't do well on breakaways. But "didn't do well" means he gave up 3 goals and stopped 2 or something. Small sample size and all that.

Dafatone
Shootouts and breakaways feel different, for some reason or another. Feels like guys score more on breakaways. Goalies have less time to know exactly what is coming compared to the very controlled setting of a shootout.

It felt like Shane didn't do well on breakaways. But "didn't do well" means he gave up 3 goals and stopped 2 or something. Small sample size and all that.

I also think shooters overthink the shootout. Plus, on a breakaway, the goalie has to consider everyone on the ice, not just the shooter. And the shooter has to worry about the defense chasing him so he can't get so in his head. Playing on instinct instead of trying to make the perfect fake probably leads to a more dangerous shooter.

Nate McDonald has entered the transfer portal. [docs.google.com]

ursusminor
Nate McDonald has entered the transfer portal. [docs.google.com]

No surprise he’s want to use that extra year of eligibility.

scoop85

ursusminor
Nate McDonald has entered the transfer portal. [docs.google.com]

No surprise he’s want to use that extra year of eligibility.

We're likely to see quite a few of next year's seniors doing the same (after next year's season) because of the Ivy League's idiotic treatment of those robbed of a season by COVID, never mind the typical prohibition against grad athletes.

Just a mess.

I was sort of sitting on this question the whole second half of the season
From my perspective, the team has been much more fluid on the breakout (even with the departure of Kaldis)
and pushing in to the offensive zone with less D to D passing or waiting for line changes behind our own goal

But this season it seemed the primary offensive strategy was to get below the end line and then attempt a jam
It was so frequent I have to assume it is an intentional shift from the corner cycle/half wall attack that has been the hallmark of our stronger years

With Andreev, Berard, Betts, etc it seems like the team had the horses to continue with the old philosophy
Thoughts from those with more experience as players/coaches on the why ?
If this was a change in philosophy, do we expect it to stick heading forward?

Cornell95
I was sort of sitting on this question the whole second half of the season
From my perspective, the team has been much more fluid on the breakout (even with the departure of Kaldis)
and pushing in to the offensive zone with less D to D passing or waiting for line changes behind our own goal

But this season it seemed the primary offensive strategy was to get below the end line and then attempt a jam
It was so frequent I have to assume it is an intentional shift from the corner cycle/half wall attack that has been the hallmark of our stronger years

With Andreev, Berard, Betts, etc it seems like the team had the horses to continue with the old philosophy
Thoughts from those with more experience as players/coaches on the why ?
If this was a change in philosophy, do we expect it to stick heading forward?

I think this is the further evolution away from a defensive style which we have been pursuing for the last 6-7 seasons. Q proved this year that with the new rules you can limit the opponent's chances by relentlessly pushing forward. Whenever the D reacts to that with any kind of impedance it gets called as holding or interference. All you need is a great goalie to deal with the inevitable counter odd man rushes and you pile up goal differential.

Seems reasonable to me, and not just because I prefer an up-tempo, skills style of play. We evolve with the way the game is officiated.