Blame it on the fans?

I'm sure most of you have read this article in The Sun today. But just in case you have not:

Mike Schafer
“The fans hurt us,” Schafer said. “They want the tradition to live, but it absolutely killed us tonight. It was disappointing. The students who really, really want something from this team and those that have been complaining about how the athletic department is trying to crack down on it, didn’t use their brains as far as their support of our team.”

I'm sure Schafer's statement is not going to affect student attendance, but I completely disagree with his assessment.

The team looked cocky Friday night and did not work hard after that first easy goal by D'Agostino 30-odd seconds into the game. They thought they were going to knock it out of the park that night, and their arrogant attitude resulted in the team going all over the place - not the stupid penalty kill. Players could not connect on passes throughout the entire game and there was no effective offensive strategy. If anything was a momentum changer, it would be the PP goal after PP goal that the team failed the defend against.

Additionally, I think our lousy PP and offensive set-up would be more to blame for the loss (and for many other losses this season) than fans throwing fish on the ice. Not that I condone delaying the game and giving our team a meaningless penalty, but to blame it on the fans? C'mon Schafer. With that attitude, no wonder we can't make it to the NCAA playoffs anymore. The attitude and behavior of the fans is a directly reflection of the attitude and performance of the team. We were only successful last year because of the exceptional quality of players we were blessed upon - that's something we cannot count on every year. I'm sure many will disagree with me, but maybe it's time for change.

ajh258
I'm sure most of you have read this article in The Sun today. But just in case you have not:

Mike Schafer
“The fans hurt us,” Schafer said. “They want the tradition to live, but it absolutely killed us tonight. It was disappointing. The students who really, really want something from this team and those that have been complaining about how the athletic department is trying to crack down on it, didn’t use their brains as far as their support of our team.”

I'm sure Schafer's statement is not going to affect student attendance, but I completely disagree with his assessment.

The team looked cocky Friday night and did not work hard after that first easy goal by D'Agostino 30-odd seconds into the game. They thought they were going to knock it out of the park that night, and their arrogant attitude resulted in the team going all over the place - not the stupid penalty kill. Players could not connect on passes throughout the entire game and there was no effective offensive strategy. If anything was a momentum changer, it would be the PP goal after PP goal that the team failed the defend against.

Additionally, I think our lousy PP and offensive set-up would be more to blame for the loss (and for many other losses this season) than fans throwing fish on the ice. Not that I condone delaying the game and giving our team a meaningless penalty, but to blame it on the fans? C'mon Schafer. With that attitude, no wonder we can't make it to the NCAA playoffs anymore. The attitude and behavior of the fans is a directly reflection of the attitude and performance of the team. We were only successful last year because of the exceptional quality of players we were blessed upon - that's something we cannot count on every year. I'm sure many will disagree with me, but maybe it's time for change.

When the fans collectively cause the team to be shorthanded in a tie game in the third period, the fans collectively earn all the opprobrium they receive.

I presume you weren't one of the selfish assholes who through fish on the ice after Arthur warned the crowd that further fish hurling could lead to a penalty. In that case, Mike Schafer wasn't calling you stupid.

cbuckser

ajh258
I'm sure most of you have read this article in The Sun today. But just in case you have not:

Mike Schafer
“The fans hurt us,” Schafer said. “They want the tradition to live, but it absolutely killed us tonight. It was disappointing. The students who really, really want something from this team and those that have been complaining about how the athletic department is trying to crack down on it, didn’t use their brains as far as their support of our team.”

I'm sure Schafer's statement is not going to affect student attendance, but I completely disagree with his assessment.

The team looked cocky Friday night and did not work hard after that first easy goal by D'Agostino 30-odd seconds into the game. They thought they were going to knock it out of the park that night, and their arrogant attitude resulted in the team going all over the place - not the stupid penalty kill. Players could not connect on passes throughout the entire game and there was no effective offensive strategy. If anything was a momentum changer, it would be the PP goal after PP goal that the team failed the defend against.

Additionally, I think our lousy PP and offensive set-up would be more to blame for the loss (and for many other losses this season) than fans throwing fish on the ice. Not that I condone delaying the game and giving our team a meaningless penalty, but to blame it on the fans? C'mon Schafer. With that attitude, no wonder we can't make it to the NCAA playoffs anymore. The attitude and behavior of the fans is a directly reflection of the attitude and performance of the team. We were only successful last year because of the exceptional quality of players we were blessed upon - that's something we cannot count on every year. I'm sure many will disagree with me, but maybe it's time for change.

When the fans collectively cause the team to be shorthanded in a tie game in the third period, the fans collectively earn all the opprobrium they receive.

I presume you weren't one of the selfish assholes who through fish on the ice after Arthur warned the crowd that further fish hurling could lead to a penalty. In that case, Mike Schafer wasn't calling you stupid.

I did not throw fish this year and do not think it's about the fish or the stupid person who threw the water bottle that caused the penalty. There was no way that "fans killed us tonight" when the team looked dead half way through the first.

Some of my friends who are close to the freshmen on the team have told me that they feel the fans have been waning this year.

I agree with the fan enthusiasm assessment, but I think it's a bigger problem. In any case, I do not want to discredit what Schafer have done for us in the past, but it's simply not true to blame the fans for the loss of a game that we could've easily clinched.

I agree, Schafer's repeated statements that the fans cost the team the game is classless. Yes, a fan committed a bone headed, stupid, Harvard helping act. However the other 4266 fans had nothing to do with this act. No they were just:

4266 fans who have purchased nearly a million dollars worth of tickets,
4266 fans who have stuck with the team in a rough year
4266 fans who by and large love their coach.
4266 fans who throw fish at the right time.
4266 fans who sing both anthems and shout Red
4266 fans who sing the Alma Mater like they mean it.
4266 fans that know what to do at the start of the 3rd.
4266 fans who can chant "Lets Go Red" endlessly
4266 fans who are the envy of college hockey
4266 fans who saw Harvard score on 3 out of 4 powerplays.
4266 fans who saw Cornell score on 0 out of 3 powerplays.

Memo to Mr. Schafer:

1. You own the teams fans 4266 apologies.
2. If you want to see the guy responsible for this season and the teams performance find a mirror.

Schafer is right and he's wrong. It was disappointing, and certain people didn't use their brains. That it "absolutely killed us" is silly.

Towerroad
I agree, Schafer's repeated statements that the fans cost the team the game is classless. Yes, a fan committed a bone headed, stupid, Harvard helping act. However the other 4266 fans had nothing to do with this act. No they were just:

4266 fans who have purchased nearly a million dollars worth of tickets,
4266 fans who have stuck with the team in a rough year
4266 fans who by and large love their coach.
4266 fans who throw fish at the right time.
4266 fans who sing both anthems and shout Red
4266 fans who sing the Alma Mater like they mean it.
4266 fans that know what to do at the start of the 3rd.
4266 fans who can chant "Lets Go Red" endlessly
4266 fans who are the envy of college hockey
4266 fans who saw Harvard score on 3 out of 4 powerplays.
4266 fans who saw Cornell score on 0 out of 3 powerplays.

Memo to Mr. Schafer:

1. You own the teams fans 4266 apologies.
2. If you want to see the guy responsible for this season and the teams performance find a mirror.

To be fair he never said they cost them the game. If you are referring to; "The fans hurt us,” Schafer said. “They want the tradition to live, but it absolutely killed us tonight.", then I think you over read it. The phrase, "killed us", is not to be taken literally. We all use it in a variety of situations. By all accounts the penalty did hurt us. Would we have won without it? No one knows, but I sure would have liked to have us had the chance.

I know you and ajh58 don't like Schafer, but as I and others have said many times before, figure out someone who has done a better job in the ECAC. And remember he is competing against some teams that give athletic scholarships. No one, repeat no one, has done better over Coach Schafer's time than he has. Maybe Union and Yale will show that over time they can, they both have great coaches, but they haven't shown that yet. As I said on another post, (Which also brings up why did we have to start a whole new thread about this, the discussion had already been started on another thread. I guess it was for emphasis, and that's OK.) The top teams in the ECAC change over the years, but Cornell is almost always one of them. Yes we have problems, our PP and breakout against a 2 man forecheck for example, I'm happy to discuss that; but to talk about how bad a coach we have, well I'm just happy our AD doesn't agree.

In regards to the second bolded (Is that a verb? Doubtful.) statement, with that I can agree. The fact that we are in third and in contention for home ice is truly due to the coaches. For that I'm grateful.

Primum non nocere...

Isn't this the LEAST we should expect of the Lynah Faithful?

Jim Hyla

Towerroad
I agree, Schafer's repeated statements that the fans cost the team the game is classless. Yes, a fan committed a bone headed, stupid, Harvard helping act. However the other 4266 fans had nothing to do with this act. No they were just:

4266 fans who have purchased nearly a million dollars worth of tickets,
4266 fans who have stuck with the team in a rough year
4266 fans who by and large love their coach.
4266 fans who throw fish at the right time.
4266 fans who sing both anthems and shout Red
4266 fans who sing the Alma Mater like they mean it.
4266 fans that know what to do at the start of the 3rd.
4266 fans who can chant "Lets Go Red" endlessly
4266 fans who are the envy of college hockey
4266 fans who saw Harvard score on 3 out of 4 powerplays.
4266 fans who saw Cornell score on 0 out of 3 powerplays.

Memo to Mr. Schafer:

1. You own the teams fans 4266 apologies.
2. If you want to see the guy responsible for this season and the teams performance find a mirror.

To be fair he never said they cost them the game. If you are referring to; "The fans hurt us,” Schafer said. “They want the tradition to live, but it absolutely killed us tonight.", then I think you over read it. The phrase, "killed us", is not to be taken literally. We all use it in a variety of situations. By all accounts the penalty did hurt us. Would we have won without it? No one knows, but I sure would have liked to have us had the chance.

I know you and ajh58 don't like Schafer, but as I and others have said many times before, figure out someone who has done a better job in the ECAC. And remember he is competing against some teams that give athletic scholarships. No one, repeat no one, has done better over Coach Schafer's time than he has. Maybe Union and Yale will show that over time they can, they both have great coaches, but they haven't shown that yet. As I said on another post, (Which also brings up why did we have to start a whole new thread about this, the discussion had already been started on another thread. I guess it was for emphasis, and that's OK.) The top teams in the ECAC change over the years, but Cornell is almost always one of them. Yes we have problems, our PP and breakout against a 2 man forecheck for example, I'm happy to discuss that; but to talk about how bad a coach we have, well I'm just happy our AD doesn't agree.

In regards to the second bolded (Is that a verb? Doubtful.) statement, with that I can agree. The fact that we are in third and in contention for home ice is truly due to the coaches. For that I'm grateful.

I haven't been around as long as Jim, and based on our record in the past, Schafer has done an incredible job - no one disagrees on that. I just want to reiterate that his statement does not diminish his ability as a great coach and I am certainly greatful that we are always in the running for an ECAC playoff spot year after year.

However, what matters at the end of the day is performance, and I just feel that with the caliber of students we are able to recruit (given the restriants of Ivy League rules) we should at least match or be close to teams like Yale and Union. I wouldn't say that Schafer fails at his job on any day, but while a lot of the Lynah Faithful seem to give rate him as an "A+" coach, I think he deserves a "B+" to "A-" at best. That is just not good enough given the collective funding, interest and dedication we put in as college hockey fans.

It's like the Yankees not making to the World Series - some of us are more forgiving and can live with that, others can't.

ajh258
However, what matters at the end of the day is performance, and I just feel that with the caliber of students we are able to recruit (given the restriants of Ivy League rules) we should at least match or be close to teams like Yale and Union

But you have to consider not just the overall "caliber of students we are able to recruit" but the specific talent on the team this year. We all knew going into this season that the cupboard is a little bare right now - nobody really expected this group of players to compete with Yale. Union has put together a couple of nice seasons, but let's see if they have any staying power before declaring that Leaman is so vastly superior to Schafer.

Considering the drastic re-tooling that this team had to do in the offseason, I think sitting in 3rd place right now speaks volumes to the CREDIT of Schafer and the rest of the coaching staff. Anybody can coach a team that is loaded with talent (well, maybe not Lucia), but not so many are able to keep a competitive team on the ice following the departure of so many key players. Edit to add: and the fact that the coaches poll had us at #2 showed that the other coaches EXPECTED Schafer to be able to do it, which I take as a huge sign of respect from his peers.

Jim Hyla

Towerroad
I agree, Schafer's repeated statements that the fans cost the team the game is classless. Yes, a fan committed a bone headed, stupid, Harvard helping act. However the other 4266 fans had nothing to do with this act. No they were just:

4266 fans who have purchased nearly a million dollars worth of tickets,
4266 fans who have stuck with the team in a rough year
4266 fans who by and large love their coach.
4266 fans who throw fish at the right time.
4266 fans who sing both anthems and shout Red
4266 fans who sing the Alma Mater like they mean it.
4266 fans that know what to do at the start of the 3rd.
4266 fans who can chant "Lets Go Red" endlessly
4266 fans who are the envy of college hockey
4266 fans who saw Harvard score on 3 out of 4 powerplays.
4266 fans who saw Cornell score on 0 out of 3 powerplays.

Memo to Mr. Schafer:

1. You own the teams fans 4266 apologies.
2. If you want to see the guy responsible for this season and the teams performance find a mirror.

To be fair he never said they cost them the game. If you are referring to; "The fans hurt us,” Schafer said. “They want the tradition to live, but it absolutely killed us tonight.", then I think you over read it. The phrase, "killed us", is not to be taken literally. We all use it in a variety of situations. By all accounts the penalty did hurt us. Would we have won without it? No one knows, but I sure would have liked to have us had the chance.

I know you and ajh58 don't like Schafer, but as I and others have said many times before, figure out someone who has done a better job in the ECAC. And remember he is competing against some teams that give athletic scholarships. No one, repeat no one, has done better over Coach Schafer's time than he has. Maybe Union and Yale will show that over time they can, they both have great coaches, but they haven't shown that yet. As I said on another post, (Which also brings up why did we have to start a whole new thread about this, the discussion had already been started on another thread. I guess it was for emphasis, and that's OK.) The top teams in the ECAC change over the years, but Cornell is almost always one of them. Yes we have problems, our PP and breakout against a 2 man forecheck for example, I'm happy to discuss that; but to talk about how bad a coach we have, well I'm just happy our AD doesn't agree.

In regards to the second bolded (Is that a verb? Doubtful.) statement, with that I can agree. The fact that we are in third and in contention for home ice is truly due to the coaches. For that I'm grateful.

It is not a question of like or dislike. Like AJ I have tremendous respect for what the coach has done. I do have substantial doubts that he is the right person for the future of the program but he certainly has earned the right to try.

That being said I stand by the characterization of his statement as classless.

Why are discussions of blame always black and white?

Being forced to go on the penalty kill at a crucial point in the game was bad.

Not playing all that well in the first two periods was also bad.

If the team only gives up one goal in the first two periods, maybe we win. If the fish penalty never happened, maybe we win. Anything more than that's impossible to tell.

And I'm all for keeping the fish as a tradition, but the fact that the bottle-thrower wasn't thrown either onto the ice or out of Lynah by crowd members is a travesty. Preferably out of Lynah, but I just want him tossed somewhere. Blame the kids and the ushers, I guess.

ajh258

Jim Hyla

Towerroad
I agree, Schafer's repeated statements that the fans cost the team the game is classless. Yes, a fan committed a bone headed, stupid, Harvard helping act. However the other 4266 fans had nothing to do with this act. No they were just:

4266 fans who have purchased nearly a million dollars worth of tickets,
4266 fans who have stuck with the team in a rough year
4266 fans who by and large love their coach.
4266 fans who throw fish at the right time.
4266 fans who sing both anthems and shout Red
4266 fans who sing the Alma Mater like they mean it.
4266 fans that know what to do at the start of the 3rd.
4266 fans who can chant "Lets Go Red" endlessly
4266 fans who are the envy of college hockey
4266 fans who saw Harvard score on 3 out of 4 powerplays.
4266 fans who saw Cornell score on 0 out of 3 powerplays.

Memo to Mr. Schafer:

1. You own the teams fans 4266 apologies.
2. If you want to see the guy responsible for this season and the teams performance find a mirror.

To be fair he never said they cost them the game. If you are referring to; "The fans hurt us,” Schafer said. “They want the tradition to live, but it absolutely killed us tonight.", then I think you over read it. The phrase, "killed us", is not to be taken literally. We all use it in a variety of situations. By all accounts the penalty did hurt us. Would we have won without it? No one knows, but I sure would have liked to have us had the chance.

I know you and ajh58 don't like Schafer, but as I and others have said many times before, figure out someone who has done a better job in the ECAC. And remember he is competing against some teams that give athletic scholarships. No one, repeat no one, has done better over Coach Schafer's time than he has. Maybe Union and Yale will show that over time they can, they both have great coaches, but they haven't shown that yet. As I said on another post, (Which also brings up why did we have to start a whole new thread about this, the discussion had already been started on another thread. I guess it was for emphasis, and that's OK.) The top teams in the ECAC change over the years, but Cornell is almost always one of them. Yes we have problems, our PP and breakout against a 2 man forecheck for example, I'm happy to discuss that; but to talk about how bad a coach we have, well I'm just happy our AD doesn't agree.

In regards to the second bolded (Is that a verb? Doubtful.) statement, with that I can agree. The fact that we are in third and in contention for home ice is truly due to the coaches. For that I'm grateful.

I haven't been around as long as Jim, and based on our record in the past, Schafer has done an incredible job - no one disagrees on that. I just want to reiterate that his statement does not diminish his ability as a great coach and I am certainly greatful that we are always in the running for an ECAC playoff spot year after year.

However, what matters at the end of the day is performance, and I just feel that with the caliber of students we are able to recruit (given the restriants of Ivy League rules) we should at least match or be close to teams like Yale and Union. I wouldn't say that Schafer fails at his job on any day, but while a lot of the Lynah Faithful seem to give rate him as an "A+" coach, I think he deserves a "B+" to "A-" at best. That is just not good enough given the collective funding, interest and dedication we put in as college hockey fans.

It's like the Yankees not making to the World Series - some of us are more forgiving and can live with that, others can't.

So I can agree with you. Let's see how close we are.

2010 We beat Union in the Championship, Yale loses to Brown in quarters.
2009 Yale beats us in Championship, Union loses in quarters.
2008 We lose to Harvard in semis, Union and Yale lose in quarters.
2007 We're #4 but lose to Quinnipiac in quarters, Yale and Union lose in first round.
2006 We lose to Harvard in Championship, Yale beats Union in first round but loses in the quarters.
2005 We win the Championship, Yale and Union lose in first round.

Do you see any pattern here? There's no sense in going back any further, Yale and Union didn't exist before then.

So I'm happy that we have kept up with Yale and Union. Oh wait, we've been beating them, not keeping up, aw-shucks. Yale's won one championship, Union none.

Yes we haven't looked good against them in recent past, but we still have done better in the end. I don't know what tomorrow will bring, but based upon the recent past, I'll wager we will be close by.

Oh, I forgot one thing. Thanks to TBRW for easy access to the results, it's much better than the ECAC site.

Jim - I think you are being a bit enthusiastic we have not beaten Yale since Nov of 2007

Towerroad
Jim - I think you are being a bit enthusiastic we have not beaten Yale since Nov of 2007

Well, that does it then... proof positive, fire the bum!

Towerroad
Jim - I think you are being a bit enthusiastic we have not beaten Yale since Nov of 2007

I think Jim's point is that, using the ECAC tournament as the final measuring stick, we've finished ahead of Yale five of the last six years. And three of the four going back to 2007.

I agree with Dafatone that this discussion has been too black and white. The jackass who threw the water bottle harmed the team's chances (along with the fellow jackasses who threw other items at the same point in the game), but the game was also lost because of too many undisciplined penalties.

Harvard scored NO five-on-five goals, getting three on power plays and one on a four-on-four that should have been the first two minutes of an unreleasable five-minute Cornell power play--if not for a dumb retaliation. This year's team has been shooting itself in the foot too often this year. Three penalties taken in the offensive zone in the third period while nursing a one-goal lead at Lynah East is a perfect example. That this team finds itself in third place at this point in the season is a tribute to its heart and determination. If it had complemented that heart with a bit more brains (i.e., discipline) it might be challenging Union and Yale for the league's top two slots.

is this the annual anti-Schafer ignorance thread? or is it more than annual at this point?

Al DeFlorio

Towerroad
Jim - I think you are being a bit enthusiastic we have not beaten Yale since Nov of 2007

I think Jim's point is that, using the ECAC tournament as the final measuring stick, we've finished ahead of Yale five of the last six years. And three of the four going back to 2007.

I agree with Dafatone that this discussion has been too black and white. The jackass who threw the water bottle harmed the team's chances (along with the fellow jackasses who threw other items at the same point in the game), but the game was also lost because of too many undisciplined penalties.

Harvard scored NO five-on-five goals, getting three on power plays and one on a four-on-four that should have been the first two minutes of an unreleasable five-minute Cornell power play--if not for a dumb retaliation. This year's team has been shooting itself in the foot too often this year. Three penalties taken in the offensive zone in the third period while nursing a one-goal lead at Lynah East is a perfect example. That this team finds itself in third place at this point in the season is a tribute to its heart and determination. If it had complemented that heart with a bit more brains (i.e., discipline) it might be challenging Union and Yale for the league's top two slots.

Exactly, that's why I said,"Yes we haven't looked good against them in recent past, but we still have done better in the end. I don't know what tomorrow will bring, but based upon the recent past, I'll wager we will be close by."

Our main problem with them has been our inability to handle their forecheck. Yet, we seem to do well in the end. Do I wish we had a better PP and breakout, hell yes, but I generally still get to go and cheer in the ECAC tourney. I guess that's my bottom line, if we go far enough in the post-season for me to have a good time, then I'm happy. To date neither Yale nor Union have shown me enough to have been a happy grad of theirs.

ajh258
I am certainly greatful that we are always in the running for an ECAC playoff spot year after year.

Uhhh...EVERYBODY'S in the running for an ECAC playoff spot year after year, Bro...

TimV

ajh258
I am certainly greatful that we are always in the running for an ECAC playoff spot year after year.

Uhhh...EVERYBODY'S in the running for an ECAC playoff spot year after year, Bro...

Just brought back memories of 1992-93. Probably best that season ended when it did.

Jim Hyla

Al DeFlorio

Towerroad
Jim - I think you are being a bit enthusiastic we have not beaten Yale since Nov of 2007

I think Jim's point is that, using the ECAC tournament as the final measuring stick, we've finished ahead of Yale five of the last six years. And three of the four going back to 2007.

I agree with Dafatone that this discussion has been too black and white. The jackass who threw the water bottle harmed the team's chances (along with the fellow jackasses who threw other items at the same point in the game), but the game was also lost because of too many undisciplined penalties.

Harvard scored NO five-on-five goals, getting three on power plays and one on a four-on-four that should have been the first two minutes of an unreleasable five-minute Cornell power play--if not for a dumb retaliation. This year's team has been shooting itself in the foot too often this year. Three penalties taken in the offensive zone in the third period while nursing a one-goal lead at Lynah East is a perfect example. That this team finds itself in third place at this point in the season is a tribute to its heart and determination. If it had complemented that heart with a bit more brains (i.e., discipline) it might be challenging Union and Yale for the league's top two slots.

Exactly, that's why I said,"Yes we haven't looked good against them in recent past, but we still have done better in the end. I don't know what tomorrow will bring, but based upon the recent past, I'll wager we will be close by."

Our main problem with them has been our inability to handle their forecheck. Yet, we seem to do well in the end. Do I wish we had a better PP and breakout, hell yes, but I generally still get to go and cheer in the ECAC tourney. I guess that's my bottom line, if we go far enough in the post-season for me to have a good time, then I'm happy. To date neither Yale nor Union have shown me enough to have been a happy grad of theirs.

Let's not wrap our selves in the Cornell Flag. I bleed as Red and cheer as loud for the Red as anyone. I am not calling for the coaches head on a platter. But I do have concerns about our style of play and what is happinging on the ice. If you think this year is a testament to coaching excellence then so be it. I am not convinced that a KRACH of 31/58 and a Pairwise of 30/58 fits the bill but that is just my numerical bias.

Why don't we leave the squabbling for the post season. Anymore would be bad mojo.

Let's hope we break our streak with Yale this weekend and have 2 great tournaments. (I think we can both agree on that.)

Let's Go Red

adamw
is this the annual anti-Schafer ignorance thread? or is it more than annual at this point?

Curley Howard
I can't say yes, I won"t say no, but I might say maybe!

adamw
is this the annual anti-Schafer ignorance thread? or is it more than annual at this point?

It's more of a flu bug. Early headache and red splotches give way for just long enough you think it's over, then it comes back as raging diarrhea.

It will pass.

Towerroad
Let's not wrap our selves in the Cornell Flag. I bleed as Red and cheer as loud for the Red as anyone. I am not calling for the coaches head on a platter. But I do have concerns about our style of play and what is happinging on the ice. If you think this year is a testament to coaching excellence then so be it. I am not convinced that a KRACH of 31/58 and a Pairwise of 30/58 fits the bill but that is just my numerical bias.

Why don't we leave the squabbling for the post season. Anymore would be bad mojo.

Let's hope we break our streak with Yale this weekend and have 2 great tournaments. (I think we can both agree on that.)

Let's Go Red

Hear, hear.

Trotsky

adamw
is this the annual anti-Schafer ignorance thread? or is it more than annual at this point?

It's more of a flu bug. Early headache and red splotches give way for just long enough you think it's over, then it comes back as raging diarrhea.

It will pass.

More specifically diarrhea of the mouth along with constipation of the brain.

Al DeFlorio
Three penalties taken in the offensive zone in the third period while nursing a one-goal lead at Lynah East is a perfect example.

In the team's defense, two of those penalties were absolute joke calls.

(I don't disagree with your general point, though, just not sure that this example really illustrates it.)

Towerroad
Jim - I think you are being a bit enthusiastic we have not beaten Yale since Nov of 2007

And earlier in Schafer's tenure there was a bunch of years where we couldn't beat Dartmouth, and before that there was a stretch when we couldn't beat Union. If anything it's worse when you have that kind of a stretch against a bottom-feeder like late-'90s Union than against one of the better teams in the league like current Yale (no shame in losing to a good team playing a style that gives us problems), but in all cases I think it's a quirk of sample size given that we only play each of those teams twice a year. Sometimes you'll flip a coin and it'll come up tails seven times in a row too but it doesn't mean there's something wrong with the coin. On balance, like Jim said, I'm perfectly to put our (read: Schafer's) end-of-year results up against anyone else in the ECAC.

Josh '99

Al DeFlorio
Three penalties taken in the offensive zone in the third period while nursing a one-goal lead at Lynah East is a perfect example.

In the team's defense, two of those penalties were absolute joke calls.

(I don't disagree with your general point, though, just not sure that this example really illustrates it.)

In the game at Harvard? Nonsense. I called all three of them at the same time as the ref did. Dumb.

Al DeFlorio

Josh '99

Al DeFlorio
Three penalties taken in the offensive zone in the third period while nursing a one-goal lead at Lynah East is a perfect example.

In the team's defense, two of those penalties were absolute joke calls.

(I don't disagree with your general point, though, just not sure that this example really illustrates it.)

In the game at Harvard? Nonsense. I called all three of them at the same time as the ref did. Dumb.

Nevertheless, all weekend long, the referees didn't seem to give us any slack at all. Most of the calls were understandable, but have been allowed by the same referees earlier in the year. Our theory was that, after last weekend, the officials were instructed or independently decided to be less lenient this weekend. Not a criticism of the officials in the least, just an interesting observation.

polar

Al DeFlorio

Josh '99

Al DeFlorio
Three penalties taken in the offensive zone in the third period while nursing a one-goal lead at Lynah East is a perfect example.

In the team's defense, two of those penalties were absolute joke calls.

(I don't disagree with your general point, though, just not sure that this example really illustrates it.)

In the game at Harvard? Nonsense. I called all three of them at the same time as the ref did. Dumb.

Nevertheless, all weekend long, the referees didn't seem to give us any slack at all. Most of the calls were understandable, but have been allowed by the same referees earlier in the year. Our theory was that, after last weekend, the officials were instructed or independently decided to be less lenient this weekend. Not a criticism of the officials in the least, just an interesting observation.

Of which weekend do you write? This past one? I'm referring to January 29 at Harvard. With RedCast video quality, I can't second guess penalty calls at Lynah, and have to take what the refs call at face value.

Al DeFlorio

Josh '99

Al DeFlorio
Three penalties taken in the offensive zone in the third period while nursing a one-goal lead at Lynah East is a perfect example.

In the team's defense, two of those penalties were absolute joke calls.

(I don't disagree with your general point, though, just not sure that this example really illustrates it.)

In the game at Harvard? Nonsense. I called all three of them at the same time as the ref did. Dumb.

Disagree with me if you want, there's no need for name-calling, especially since penalties are often subjective and reasonable minds can differ on what deserves be called.

Josh '99

Al DeFlorio

Josh '99

Al DeFlorio
Three penalties taken in the offensive zone in the third period while nursing a one-goal lead at Lynah East is a perfect example.

In the team's defense, two of those penalties were absolute joke calls.

(I don't disagree with your general point, though, just not sure that this example really illustrates it.)

In the game at Harvard? Nonsense. I called all three of them at the same time as the ref did. Dumb.

Disagree with me if you want, there's no need for name-calling, especially since penalties are often subjective and reasonable minds can differ on what deserves be called.

Josh, obviously I'm not sure, but I think he meant the penalties were dumb, not that you were. Offensive zone penalties, when you are ahead, are often "dumb".

Josh '99

Al DeFlorio

Josh '99

Al DeFlorio
Three penalties taken in the offensive zone in the third period while nursing a one-goal lead at Lynah East is a perfect example.

In the team's defense, two of those penalties were absolute joke calls.

(I don't disagree with your general point, though, just not sure that this example really illustrates it.)

In the game at Harvard? Nonsense. I called all three of them at the same time as the ref did. Dumb.

Disagree with me if you want, there's no need for name-calling, especially since penalties are often subjective and reasonable minds can differ on what deserves be called.

Josh, the penalties were "dumb," not you.

Al DeFlorio

Josh '99

Al DeFlorio

Josh '99

Al DeFlorio
Three penalties taken in the offensive zone in the third period while nursing a one-goal lead at Lynah East is a perfect example.

In the team's defense, two of those penalties were absolute joke calls.

(I don't disagree with your general point, though, just not sure that this example really illustrates it.)

In the game at Harvard? Nonsense. I called all three of them at the same time as the ref did. Dumb.

Disagree with me if you want, there's no need for name-calling, especially since penalties are often subjective and reasonable minds can differ on what deserves be called.

Josh, the penalties were "dumb," not you.

My bad then; sorry, this is twice in recent weeks that I've misread something you wrote in this kind of fashion, maybe I AM a little bit of teh dumb lately.

Josh '99

Al DeFlorio

Josh '99

Al DeFlorio

Josh '99

Al DeFlorio
Three penalties taken in the offensive zone in the third period while nursing a one-goal lead at Lynah East is a perfect example.

In the team's defense, two of those penalties were absolute joke calls.

(I don't disagree with your general point, though, just not sure that this example really illustrates it.)

In the game at Harvard? Nonsense. I called all three of them at the same time as the ref did. Dumb.

Disagree with me if you want, there's no need for name-calling, especially since penalties are often subjective and reasonable minds can differ on what deserves be called.

Josh, the penalties were "dumb," not you.

My bad then; sorry, this is twice in recent weeks that I've misread something you wrote in this kind of fashion, maybe I AM a little bit of teh dumb lately.

Nah.

At Friday's Cornell-Harvard game, the penalties called in the U end where we sat seemed about right. The delay of game penalty, as I saw it, the referees ignored the 2 itty bitty fish that fell near Garman and only when the bottle/can and wadded up newspaper went over the side at the Harvard sieve end did we get whistled.

About time for another thread of the mediocrity of the Cornell webcasts.

billhoward
At Friday's Cornell-Harvard game, the penalties called in the U end where we sat seemed about right. The delay of game penalty, as I saw it, the referees ignored the 2 itty bitty fish that fell near Garman and only when the bottle/can and wadded up newspaper went over the side at the Harvard sieve end did we get whistled.

About time for another thread of the mediocrity of the Cornell webcasts.

I couldn't tell jack from the webcast, but Jason opined that the officials had let quite a bit go on both sides in both games. I know I was terrified down the stretch of the Dartmouth game every time a Big Green player tripped.

With a minute to go in the second, the Cantabs' David Valek was chasing a Cornell player behind the Harvard net, reached out and got the stick a little bit around the Cornell waist, and you could see the Cornell player wobble for a moment. (I don't think he went down.) A penalty, I thought, but also maybe a borderline call in a close game they might miss or let go. Nope. Bob Ritchie in the corner 15 feet behind the play had his arm up immediately. I don't recall Harvard arguing the call beyond the usual who-me shrug. Ritchie has refereed the world juniors and is relatively young. With some older refs, I think they may be chugging up and down the ice, get winded late in the game, and maybe try to make / not make calls from too far away. Of course, with four officials on the ice, it's harder to get away with things now. So, if Cornell is a goon team (non Cornell viewers, I say this as a theoretical), then the extra refs should cost Cornell some of its advantage.

At Union and RPI, whatever could be said about the officials, I think it was the teams (and I suppose then too the coaches) who had lost control. The alleged Union cheap shot late in the third, when the game was more than out of reach, and Dan Nicholls' re-enactment of the True Grit vengeance scene at Union wasn't something an official could stop unless he had ESP.