attendance

so this has been beat to death a 1000 times on this formum, and recognizing that this is not really the appropriate place to complain (this is not my target audience)... but last night was my first home game in quite a few years, and the attendance was absolutely disgraceful. half of A was open the entire game, and it looked like most of D/E/F/G were about the same. B only filled in during the first period. and the people who did show up (1) left as soon as clarkson went up by two goals, (2) were paying more attention to their phones than the game.

this is what happens when you make it so easy to get tickets that anybody can go

in 2004, we weren't amazing (especially after the last few years). but the rink was filled at game time, the crowd was loud, and people stayed until the end.

worth mentioning a few positives:
1) much easier to get tickets from out of town
2) HUGE KUDOS to the "townies" who packed half the rink
3) the band looked and sounded great

hoping people show up tonight. we'll be there, and hoping to be there tomorrow too

mike '04

I harp on this more than anyone else here because I am of the opinion that as soon as the Lynah atmosphere dies, our success will die with it. Every player who chooses to play at Cornell makes that choice in part because of the fans. The Faithful is the biggest factor differentiating the Red from other programs, especially the other Ivies'. For proof, look at the Freshman Friday interviews with every single player who comes here: they all mention the fans as a major reason they chose Cornell.

The attendance is a shell of what it once was, and has been in continuous decline for years now: the "student section," which stretched to Section F a decade ago, now can barely fill B and can fill just half of A, while D is mostly empty and those that do show up sit the entire game. Only B knows the cheers. And no one gets to the game on time; no newspaper/"boring" chants anymore. And the townie attendance is way down, too. Section M still shows up, but the corner sections are often 1/3-1/2 empty.

Schafer has called out the crowd on numerous occasions lately. Three examples (paraphrasing here) are in his post-game pressers for last year's Harvard game ("I don't know where this kind of crowd has been all season" ), this year's Clarkson game ("The players looked up and were wondering, 'where are all the fans?'" ), and this year's Union game ("I thought Section B was great tonight--the other student section, I don't know what's wrong with them" ). But Senior Night was the night that broke my proverbial camel's back. If you're going to show up to the game, at least stay an extra fifteen minutes to honor the seniors. Section D completely emptied out during the celebrations. Frankly, it was insulting. [EDIT: removed winky smiley faces by putting an extra space before parentheses.]

This will continue to get worse because the problem compounds itself. Less people/less cheering-->Lynah becomes less of a "place to be"-->less people/less cheering. Success itself won't bring the fans back; though it would help, the reality is that Cornell has been largely successful the entire time the crowds have been going to shit. I've argued before that lowering student ticket prices to something around $100 would bring a lot of students back, and I still believe that: Cornell has the most expensive season tickets on a per-game basis in college hockey, and there are many students who would love to attend the games but don't want to shell out $230 for season tickets.

Write letters to Andy Noel or whoever the appropriate party for this would be, bring it up at a Cornell Hockey Association meeting, I don't know. But there is no excuse for tickets to still cost this much. Or for the ushers to kill the experience, if that's your standpoint on the matter. Make your voice heard if you don't want Lynah to become just another rink.

A-19
in 2004, we weren't amazing (especially after the last few years). but the rink was filled at game time, the crowd was loud, and people stayed until the end.

Not necessarily disagreeing with you that attendance is a problem, but comparing attendance this season to the season after a Frozen Four appearance and two regional finals appearances in a row (not to mention we finished 2nd in the ECAC in 2004 and were expected to breeze through Clarkson in the QFs) is not exactly the most apt analogy. Attendance is down partly because we haven't made it to the NCAA tournament at all in the last four years, and 2002-06 and 2009-12 were reasonably "fat" stretches that spoiled us. Yes, I'm sure the prices, more options, smartphones, etc. have an effect. But so do results.

I wish we could be there tonight, and I hope there's a good turnout and a good result.

very good crowd tonight

upprdeck
very good crowd tonight

This came across on the broadcast, too.

I expect a very small crowd tomorrow which is the usual for a game 3.

A-19

mike '04

Eh, no one is as good as A-B was in 03/04. RAAAAAAAH!

significant improvement in the crowd tonight. obviously a ton of people read my post and were shamed into attending

French Rage

A-19

mike '04

Eh, no one is as good as A-B was in 03/04. RAAAAAAAH!

No student section has ever been better than '96. Knowledgeable, creative, rabid, and hungry. Multiple fans went over the boards after winning the second home game of the season, for goodness sake!

(At least we here can look back fondly at the rabidity of our sections. Will today's diehards? Probably not so much.)

French Rage

Eh, no one is as good as A-B was in 03/04. RAAAAAAAH!

Scersk '97
No student section has ever been better than '96. Knowledgeable, creative, rabid, and hungry. Multiple fans went over the boards after winning the second home game of the season, for goodness sake!

(At least we here can look back fondly at the rabidity of our sections. Will today's diehards? Probably not so much.)

Trotsky and I will take mid-80s Section D. (We shot twice at the non-scoreboard end back then, so D was the current B equivalent.) We were still allowed to pound on the glass, pick on individual players, and just generally be better hockey fans than the administration allows now.

And we had to sleep out for tickets, and we LIKED IT!

Nothing will ever match mid-80's Lynah in my mind.

Edit: I can definitely believe that late 60s, 70s and early 80s Lynah was as good or even better. I just never got to experience that.

andyw2100
Nothing will ever match mid-80's Lynah in my mind.

I agree with this, because we're basically saying nothing will ever compare with being 20.

My discriminator is that in the early-to-mid 80s there were sort of "rolling try-outs" for who was clever and who wasn't. Individuals would yell (at the top of their lungs to be heard above the constant racket) their bon mots, and they were either rewarded with laughter / cheers / repetition of the chant, or no reaction. This was a tough Darwinian process but by the end of the season there were a handful of extremely funny people who were "platoon leaders" in their areas. There was also stiff competition for the honors and people were thoughtful in their thoughtlessness towards the opponent.

The "hey x, your y called..." recitation from B now frankly sucks. It's planned in advance, wooden, and can't be heard beyond 10 people beyond it. It's the epitome of the bureaucratization of what started out as spontaneous cleverness. I don't blame the current students because that's been going on for a while now, but it's the equivalent of those "let's rebel in socially acceptable ways" Mentos ads. Sad.

andyw2100
Edit: I can definitely believe that late 60s, 70s and early 80s Lynah was as good or even better. I just never got to experience that.

I can tell you it was wonderful, just look at my signature lines. As I've posted before, driving to Boston and walking up the ramps to the old Boston Garden was something that will stick in my memories forever. After-all it's one of those distant memories that stay with you when get senile, isn't it?

Of course winning, especially in Boston, had a lot to do with fan support.

andyw2100

French Rage

Eh, no one is as good as A-B was in 03/04. RAAAAAAAH!

Scersk '97
No student section has ever been better than '96. Knowledgeable, creative, rabid, and hungry. Multiple fans went over the boards after winning the second home game of the season, for goodness sake!

(At least we here can look back fondly at the rabidity of our sections. Will today's diehards? Probably not so much.)

Trotsky and I will take mid-80s Section D. (We shot twice at the non-scoreboard end back then, so D was the current B equivalent.) We were still allowed to pound on the glass, pick on individual players, and just generally be better hockey fans than the administration allows now.

And we had to sleep out for tickets, and we LIKED IT!

Nothing will ever match mid-80's Lynah in my mind.

Edit: I can definitely believe that late 60s, 70s and early 80s Lynah was as good or even better. I just never got to experience that.

As an '85 grad, I can agree that the atmosphere was terrific, with lots of cutting comments at the enemy players (and the officials as appropriate). And we were fairly average until the 84-85 season when Nieuwendyk was a freshman.

I'm sure this has been answered before, but why did they switch the ends of the ice where we shoot twice? It would seem logical that the team should shoot twice at the end where the most fans are concentrated rather than at the scoreboard end.

i was there in the early 90's which had a one-two punch that weakened the fandom.

First, without regard for whether the ticket riot was a good reason to end the line,* the death of the line was devastating to hardcore fandom. The line was an investment that you had to validate with regular attendance - it converted facetimers into diehards just because that's how human psychology kind of works. We're pretty stupid animals.

Second, the Bandurski era was legit bad. After a great run of top-flight teams with Canadian Olympians and college-elite goaltending, the team started losing a LOT. Die hards hate losing; less-dedicated fans don't hate it they just stop going.

You could say that a third punch was the language policing, and you'd probably be right, but also shut up. 1000 teens yelling "fuck" isn't clever even if it's fun.



* It was a good reason to end the line location shell game, certainly. I'm one of the people who thinks they should have just let the line start whenever kids were dumb enough to line up with some kind of placeholder rules that forced you to camp out to preserve your place but enough flexibility that the actual point of attending school isn't lost. Do not respond to this in this thread.

Also, I don't see pounding on the glass as a good thing. While it may have created a zoo-like atmosphere, it's one thing I don't miss. I think it should be grounds for kicking people out, at any arena, anywhere. I can't stand it.

scoop85

I'm sure this has been answered before, but why did they switch the ends of the ice where we shoot twice? It would seem logical that the team should shoot twice at the end where the most fans are concentrated rather than at the scoreboard end.

I believe the official reason for switching ends was given as being so that the players could be facing the scoreboard for two periods instead of for one. (Helpful for end of penalty and even end of period, as at the time there was no game clock at the other end.)

An additional, and I don't believe stated reason was, supposedly, the weird bounces that would occasionally come from the "Zamboni" door that once in a while result in a puck that is being wrapped around the boards just flying out into the slot. Always unexpected, never good for the defense, and often exceptionally good for the offense.

adamw
Also, I don't see pounding on the glass as a good thing. While it may have created a zoo-like atmosphere, it's one thing I don't miss. I think it should be grounds for kicking people out, at any arena, anywhere. I can't stand it.

Just for the record, and for the younger posters / lurkers here, the "glass" now is nothing like what it was in the 80s, and pounding on it, if students were allowed to pound on it, would not have even close to the same effect. The "glass" back then was lower, was plexiglass or something, and when people pounded on it the entire boards seemed to shake.

andyw2100

adamw
Also, I don't see pounding on the glass as a good thing. While it may have created a zoo-like atmosphere, it's one thing I don't miss. I think it should be grounds for kicking people out, at any arena, anywhere. I can't stand it.

Just for the record, and for the younger posters / lurkers here, the "glass" now is nothing like what it was in the 80s, and pounding on it, if students were allowed to pound on it, would not have even close to the same effect. The "glass" back then was lower, was plexiglass or something, and when people pounded on it the entire boards seemed to shake.

It's still plexiglas far as I know - it's just taller, maybe thicker, and the connections between them are tighter.

adamw

andyw2100

adamw
Also, I don't see pounding on the glass as a good thing. While it may have created a zoo-like atmosphere, it's one thing I don't miss. I think it should be grounds for kicking people out, at any arena, anywhere. I can't stand it.

Just for the record, and for the younger posters / lurkers here, the "glass" now is nothing like what it was in the 80s, and pounding on it, if students were allowed to pound on it, would not have even close to the same effect. The "glass" back then was lower, was plexiglass or something, and when people pounded on it the entire boards seemed to shake.

It's still plexiglas far as I know - it's just taller, maybe thicker, and the connections between them are tighter.

Perhaps then and now were both plexiglass, or perhaps the 80s glass wasn't plexiglass and the current glass is, but I assure you the material in use back then felt and behaved completely differently from the way the thick glass in place now behaves.

andyw2100

scoop85

I'm sure this has been answered before, but why did they switch the ends of the ice where we shoot twice? It would seem logical that the team should shoot twice at the end where the most fans are concentrated rather than at the scoreboard end.

I believe the official reason for switching ends was given as being so that the players could be facing the scoreboard for two periods instead of for one. (Helpful for end of penalty and even end of period, as at the time there was no game clock at the other end.)

An additional, and I don't believe stated reason was, supposedly, the weird bounces that would occasionally come from the "Zamboni" door that once in a while result in a puck that is being wrapped around the boards just flying out into the slot. Always unexpected, never good for the defense, and often exceptionally good for the offense.

Also, the bench configurations were different. Both benches were opposite the student section, and small details like the door locations may have come into play. IIRC, the Dan Dufresne Memorial Penalty Boxes weren't symmetrical around the red line. They were closer to the wall end, and a freshly-sprung player would be ready to receive a pass at the blue line for a breakaway.

andyw2100

adamw

andyw2100

adamw
Also, I don't see pounding on the glass as a good thing. While it may have created a zoo-like atmosphere, it's one thing I don't miss. I think it should be grounds for kicking people out, at any arena, anywhere. I can't stand it.

Just for the record, and for the younger posters / lurkers here, the "glass" now is nothing like what it was in the 80s, and pounding on it, if students were allowed to pound on it, would not have even close to the same effect. The "glass" back then was lower, was plexiglass or something, and when people pounded on it the entire boards seemed to shake.

It's still plexiglas far as I know - it's just taller, maybe thicker, and the connections between them are tighter.

Perhaps then and now were both plexiglass, or perhaps the 80s glass wasn't plexiglass and the current glass is, but I assure you the material in use back then felt and behaved completely differently from the way the thick glass in place now behaves.

Lynah now has the seamless glass, which is notorious for making everything more rigid. There are plenty of articles with comments from players complaining how little "give" the new glass has. In the 90s, the glass was shorter and had the metal rib dividers between each pane. They rattled quite a bit.

And were fun to jump over.

Starting around the 2000 rink improvements, the glass height increased so you couldn't reach the top from the benches. The "tradition" of storming the ice after a QF series win changed to just opening the zamboni doors and letting the students walk out. I don't think they even do that anymore.

andyw2100
Perhaps then and now were both plexiglass, or perhaps the 80s glass wasn't plexiglass and the current glass is, but I assure you the material in use back then felt and behaved completely differently from the way the thick glass in place now behaves.

I wasn't disagreeing with you. As I said, the boards are higher, tighter and put together more rigidly ("seamless glass", as Rich pointed out)

adamw

andyw2100
Perhaps then and now were both plexiglass, or perhaps the 80s glass wasn't plexiglass and the current glass is, but I assure you the material in use back then felt and behaved completely differently from the way the thick glass in place now behaves.

I wasn't disagreeing with you. As I said, the boards are higher, tighter and put together more rigidly ("seamless glass", as Rich pointed out)

I didn't really think you were. I was just trying to point out that if the stuff is now plexiglass it is very different plexiglass, or the stuff back in the 80s may not have been plexiglass at all. No one would confuse the stuff in use back in the 80s for actual glass. It was nothing like the glass in your windows, for example.

The stuff in use now looks and feels like real glass. I would not be able to tell it apart from the glass used in my windows, except for the fact that it is much thicker. So if it is not actual glass, but rather plexiglass, then plexiglass has come a long way.

Jim Hyla

andyw2100
Edit: I can definitely believe that late 60s, 70s and early 80s Lynah was as good or even better. I just never got to experience that.

I can tell you it was wonderful, just look at my signature lines. As I've posted before, driving to Boston and walking up the ramps to the old Boston Garden was something that will stick in my memories forever. After-all it's one of those distant memories that stay with you when get senile, isn't it?

Of course winning, especially in Boston, had a lot to do with fan support.

You're absolutely right, Jim!!

adamw
Also, I don't see pounding on the glass as a good thing. While it may have created a zoo-like atmosphere, it's one thing I don't miss. I think it should be grounds for kicking people out, at any arena, anywhere. I can't stand it.

Same here. That's noob garbage and NHL-level dumbassery. It detracts from atmosphere.

RichH

andyw2100

scoop85

I'm sure this has been answered before, but why did they switch the ends of the ice where we shoot twice? It would seem logical that the team should shoot twice at the end where the most fans are concentrated rather than at the scoreboard end.

I believe the official reason for switching ends was given as being so that the players could be facing the scoreboard for two periods instead of for one. (Helpful for end of penalty and even end of period, as at the time there was no game clock at the other end.)

An additional, and I don't believe stated reason was, supposedly, the weird bounces that would occasionally come from the "Zamboni" door that once in a while result in a puck that is being wrapped around the boards just flying out into the slot. Always unexpected, never good for the defense, and often exceptionally good for the offense.

Also, the bench configurations were different. Both benches were opposite the student section, and small details like the door locations may have come into play. IIRC, the Dan Dufresne Memorial Penalty Boxes weren't symmetrical around the red line. They were closer to the wall end, and a freshly-sprung player would be ready to receive a pass at the blue line for a breakaway.

This is all accurate. Then-assistant-coach Schaefer sat in at a pep band rehearsal to thank/give encouragement sometime around 89-91 IIRC as to the timeframe. He talked about the rink at length and said, at least to that "unofficial gathering", that the zamboni doors were definitely a reason in addition to the scoreboard issue.

Also, by this time the pep band had been seated in Section A after some number of years in F(E?). He talked about how it would put the other goalie in a lot more noise from the band alone if only during breaks from play. He also said that a main reason for the band moving to A at the time was that it was widely known from current/former coaches/players of visiting teams that it could be crazy loud in the visiting dressing room because of all the band noise, making pre-game and intermission conversation and coaching a difficult exercise.

In the Harkness era, Cornell shot twice toward the scoreboard. Bertrand switched it sometime in the 70s so the opposing goalie was surrounded by Cornellfans for two periods. It was switched back, as I understand it, because the blank wall under the scoreboard was thought to be a better background for the Cornell goalie to see the puck. Now the wall is not so blank.

Al DeFlorio
In the Harkness era, Cornell shot twice toward the scoreboard. Bertrand switched it sometime in the 70s so the opposing goalie was surrounded by Cornellfans for two periods. It was switched back, as I understand it, because the blank wall under the scoreboard was thought to be a better background for the Cornell goalie to see the puck. Now the wall is not so blank.

Yeah, it would seem logical to me to have the opposing goalie surrounded by the Faithful for 2 periods.

I remember one game, where we were harassing the Vermont goalie so severely that the goalies switched ends at the 10 minute mark of the thrid period.

RichH

andyw2100

scoop85

I'm sure this has been answered before, but why did they switch the ends of the ice where we shoot twice? It would seem logical that the team should shoot twice at the end where the most fans are concentrated rather than at the scoreboard end.

I believe the official reason for switching ends was given as being so that the players could be facing the scoreboard for two periods instead of for one. (Helpful for end of penalty and even end of period, as at the time there was no game clock at the other end.)

An additional, and I don't believe stated reason was, supposedly, the weird bounces that would occasionally come from the "Zamboni" door that once in a while result in a puck that is being wrapped around the boards just flying out into the slot. Always unexpected, never good for the defense, and often exceptionally good for the offense.

Also, the bench configurations were different. Both benches were opposite the student section, and small details like the door locations may have come into play. IIRC, the Dan Dufresne Memorial Penalty Boxes weren't symmetrical around the red line. They were closer to the wall end, and a freshly-sprung player would be ready to receive a pass at the blue line for a breakaway.

Before the 2000 renovations, both teams shared a single penalty bench in front of the scorer's table and Section C at center ice, on the red line. The 2000 renovations introduced separate penalty boxes for each team, still in front of Section C, and moved the scorer's table from behind the penalty bench to ice level, between the penalty boxes. The current configuration, with players' benches and penalty boxes on opposite sides of the ice, happened with the 2006(?) renovation. I don't know what rink you're thinking of, but it's not Lynah.

Cornell is bigger than a generation ago but more (but not majority) ...
* outside the Northeast
* international
* grad student
* non-legacy
... which may yield a student body less immediately inclined to follow ice hockey.

I was at the Friday game and was surprised by the empty seats especially in section E (? the last before the corner). It was nice to simply stroll up to the ticket window and buy tix. They said it was a quote sellout except for a few seats. The atmosphere was still pretty good. I appreciate the extra seats from the expansion including the 100 or so chair-backed seats. Some alumni like the additional comfort.

The Daily Sun's game story notes that there will be roof work at Lynah during the offseason.

With impending renovations to Lynah’s roof, the team will only get one more time on the home sheet before the rink closes up to get ready for next season.

Is this saying that the team will only get one practice at Lynah ahead of Lake Placid -- and none before a potential NCAA tournament game? Anyone know the details about the renovation?

Al DeFlorio
In the Harkness era, Cornell shot twice toward the scoreboard. Bertrand switched it sometime in the 70s so the opposing goalie was surrounded by Cornell fans for two periods. It was switched back, as I understand it, because the blank wall under the scoreboard was thought to be a better background for the Cornell goalie to see the puck. Now the wall is not so blank.

Right about the Harkness era. In those days, the rules said that a coin flip before the game would determine which team got the choice of ends. Cornell always took the east end without a coin flip to give the goalie the cleaner view of the puck, play in general, and the scoreboard. I'm not sure whether other home teams also asserted the privilege of choosing, but occasional a visitor would comp;lain. Eventually (sometime after 1975) the rule was changed to give the home team the choice.

the practice will be at The Rink.. I was told starting today?

Sounds like they are replacing the roofing timbers in some way from what i was told.

upprdeck
the practice will be at The Rink.. I was told starting today?

Sounds like they are replacing the roofing timbers in some way from what i was told.

"The Rink" with caps must be Lynah, right? Where will their other practices be? Including the ones before the NCAA.

"the rink" in lansing is what i was told. Lynah shut down until fall in hopes they get it done before the season starts.

TimV

upprdeck
the practice will be at The Rink.. I was told starting today?

Sounds like they are replacing the roofing timbers in some way from what i was told.

"The Rink" with caps must be Lynah, right? Where will their other practices be? Including the ones before the NCAA.

The Rink is a private facility in Lansing, part of Community Recreation Center. [www.crcithaca.com] [ithacavoice.com]

Thanks. I'm not a local guy. But it might work out to open a bar in Lansing by the same name. "Honey, I'm going to The Rink for an hour or so..." Used to be one near me called "The Office."

With the caveat that I have no experience whatsoever in building, contracting, etc., I have to wonder about the timing. Was the administration just being pessimistic about the team's chances to advance beyond the ECAC quarterfinals when they scheduled the start date of this project? We seem to be talking about a project scheduled to take about seven months to complete. Would scheduling the start date a couple of weeks later really have had such a major impact on the project? I would think hiring a few extra workers for the six and a half months would have allowed the same amount of work to be done as will now be done in seven months, and would not have any impact on the cost. (The man-hours worked would just be compressed into a slightly shorter time.)

Again, I have no expertise in this area. It just seems silly to me to be disrupting the team's routine at such a crucial time.

andyw2100
With the caveat that I have no experience whatsoever in building, contracting, etc., I have to wonder about the timing. Was the administration just being pessimistic about the team's chances to advance beyond the ECAC quarterfinals? We seem to be talking about a project scheduled to take seven months to complete. Would delaying the start a couple of weeks really have had such a major impact on the project? I would think hiring a few extra workers for the six and a half months would allow the same amount of work to be done as will now be done in seven months.

Again, I have no expertise in this area. It just seems silly to me to be disrupting the team's routine at such a crucial time.

I'm recalling that they did more or less the same thing for one of the renovations several years ago - the moment they knew they wouldn't have any more actual games, they closed down to make sure they would have enough time to finish the work before actual games started up again. I doubt very seriously whether the routine will be broken up much by having to ride a team bus for ten minutes to The Rink.

Beeeej
I doubt very seriously whether the routine will be broken up much by having to ride a team bus for ten minutes to The Rink.

agree. A sheet is a sheet. They can practice anywhere.

You schedule the work so it doesn't affect game attendance. It's not as if these guys sleep on cots in the locker room.

TimV
Thanks. I'm not a local guy. But it might work out to open a bar in Lansing by the same name. "Honey, I'm going to The Rink for an hour or so..." Used to be one near me called "The Office."

I spent senior year of high school telling my parents I was meeting friends at McDonnell's.

Not my fault if they heard McDonalds.