Whither Mike Schafer?
Posted by billhoward
Whither Mike Schafer?
Posted by: billhoward (---.union01.nj.comcast.net)
Date: March 28, 2005 02:03PM
How content is Mike Schafer at Cornell? There's discussion on adjacent threads of whether it's McKee, Moulson or Iggulden who's Cornell's most valuable player. What about if the P in MVP stood for the most valuable person associated with Cornell hockey ... ? I think he's said in the past something to the effect of every coach having a dream of being an NHL coach, which could mean a) he'd like to coach in the NHL or b) Cornell shouldn't be too complacent and think they can ignore funding for the assistants and the rink.
Re: Whither Mike Schafer?
Posted by: Will (---.cable.mindspring.com)
Date: March 28, 2005 02:07PM
Given the current state of the NHL, I think Schafer's here to stay, at least for a few more years. Also, right now I can't imagine him leaving before Cornell wins a national championship during his tenure.
___________________________
Is next year here yet?
Is next year here yet?
Re: Whither Mike Schafer?
Posted by: KeithK (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: March 28, 2005 02:10PM
Feeling nothing but utter selfishness, I hope the NHL (if they ever need coaches again) decides that the Harkness experiment demonstrates that Cornell coaches, no matter how successful, can never be a force in the big leagues. So Mike is forced to stay in Ithaca until he retires. 
Your second point is a good one. There's no guarantee that Schafer will stay at Cornell forever so it is very important that he get support from Athletics. So far I haven't heard any indications that the team isn't getting the support it needs, but what do I know?
Your second point is a good one. There's no guarantee that Schafer will stay at Cornell forever so it is very important that he get support from Athletics. So far I haven't heard any indications that the team isn't getting the support it needs, but what do I know?
Re: Whither Mike Schafer?
Posted by: rstott (128.164.243.---)
Date: March 28, 2005 02:31PM
I think Schafer will be here for some time. I don’t think he’d leave except for a top national hockey program, and I don’t think they’d be interested in him. Scahfer’s teams are associated with a distinctive defensive, somewhat dull, style of play. My guess is that the reaction would be “that’s all very well in the ECACHL, but really wouldn’t work in the WCHA, CCHA, HE and even if it did our fans wouldn’t like watching it.†The alleged problems Cornell has on large ice would be another consideration.
If Schafer still wants to coach in the NHL (he’s said in the past he did) the best way would probably be to take an assistant coaching job with a NHL team and even then it’s a long shot.
If Schafer still wants to coach in the NHL (he’s said in the past he did) the best way would probably be to take an assistant coaching job with a NHL team and even then it’s a long shot.
Re: Whither Mike Schafer?
Posted by: billhoward (---.union01.nj.comcast.net)
Date: March 28, 2005 02:42PM
If the NHL wants to think college coaches are not the answer, more's the better for the college game. Maybe they (NHL) should consider a more complex model that includes the perils of bringing in a new guy who didn't spend some time as an NHL assistant learning how the pro players are different from college players ... that one person can't fix a disfunctional team in a couple months ... and that Ned's apparently strong personality type offset the charisma and talent that worked so well in the college game. (OTOH Lou Lamoriello ex-Providence was a real rules and discipline type and he's made the Devils winners by changing the team more slowly and jettisoning the players most averse to some of the seemingly Mickey Mouse rules that followed him from Providence.)
Ther NBA seems to make that mistake over and over, trying to lure the top guys from the college ranks. In Ned's case, the salary difference - what was he making at Cornell when he left, $50K in 1970 dollars? - made a difference. For a Pitino or Calipari, who was already making $1 million plus in salary, TV show, show contracts and speaking engagements, they're already most comfortable.
Ther NBA seems to make that mistake over and over, trying to lure the top guys from the college ranks. In Ned's case, the salary difference - what was he making at Cornell when he left, $50K in 1970 dollars? - made a difference. For a Pitino or Calipari, who was already making $1 million plus in salary, TV show, show contracts and speaking engagements, they're already most comfortable.
Re: Whither Mike Schafer?
Posted by: Kyle Rose (---.akamai.com)
Date: March 28, 2005 02:45PM
For lack of a better way of saying this, Mike specializes in low-budget hockey. What I mean by this is that Mike takes players of slightly less than stellar caliber (because the best of the best generally accept full scholarships at other programs) and molds them into a team that can compete on the national stage. They aren't flashy, and offense is clearly a second priority; but since they can frustrate the flashy players from other teams and keep them from scoring, it is generally effective... at this level.
Not clear that it would fly in the NHL, because the talent level is much higher. He might be able to take a crappy team and turn them into one that makes it far into the playoffs, but I think (as we've seen this year and in 2003) it would ultimately fail late in the playoffs because individual talent at that point is able to overcome inferior coaching.
Also not clear how Schafer would adjust to a different, less defensively-minded system, or whether he would even want to, for that matter. I personally hope he sticks around because it is my considered opinion that attracting a nationally-competitive offense is a futile proposition for an Ivy League school: there just aren't that many top-notch players smart or driven enough to meet the academic standards, or willing to pay $40,000/year (or some portion thereof when need-based aid is taken into account) when they could be getting paid for the same effort.
See the Ivy League get a lot better all of a sudden in lots of sports when they stop charging tuition entirely. I bet Harvard does this within 15 years.
Cheers,
Kyle
Not clear that it would fly in the NHL, because the talent level is much higher. He might be able to take a crappy team and turn them into one that makes it far into the playoffs, but I think (as we've seen this year and in 2003) it would ultimately fail late in the playoffs because individual talent at that point is able to overcome inferior coaching.
Also not clear how Schafer would adjust to a different, less defensively-minded system, or whether he would even want to, for that matter. I personally hope he sticks around because it is my considered opinion that attracting a nationally-competitive offense is a futile proposition for an Ivy League school: there just aren't that many top-notch players smart or driven enough to meet the academic standards, or willing to pay $40,000/year (or some portion thereof when need-based aid is taken into account) when they could be getting paid for the same effort.
See the Ivy League get a lot better all of a sudden in lots of sports when they stop charging tuition entirely. I bet Harvard does this within 15 years.
Cheers,
Kyle
Re: Whither Mike Schafer?
Posted by: billhoward (---.union01.nj.comcast.net)
Date: March 28, 2005 02:47PM
Let's hope Tim Taylor has a drink with Mike at the national coaches convention and they talk about how good life can be in a college program. You have to have a lot of respect for Taylor and what he's done at Yale.
There's also the outside chance all big time sports, pro/college, will implode with the steroid scandal - see this weeks' "what have they done to our game" cover in SI - and we'll all scale back to a simpler, gentler college sports environment that would let the Ivies be more competitive. I think there's only a snowball's chance in hell of that happening, but it's worth pondering.
There's also the outside chance all big time sports, pro/college, will implode with the steroid scandal - see this weeks' "what have they done to our game" cover in SI - and we'll all scale back to a simpler, gentler college sports environment that would let the Ivies be more competitive. I think there's only a snowball's chance in hell of that happening, but it's worth pondering.
Re: Whither Mike Schafer?
Posted by: ugarte (---.cisco.com)
Date: March 28, 2005 02:57PM
[Q]krose Wrote:
For lack of a better way of saying this, Mike specializes in low-budget hockey. What I mean by this is that Mike takes players of slightly less than stellar caliber (because the best of the best generally accept full scholarships at other programs) and molds them into a team that can compete on the national stage. [/q]They would have said this about Bill Self a few years ago. Those are the guys who get the chance at the big time. I'm hoping Schafer stays, but his success under restrictions will make him MORE attractive to other programs, not less.
For lack of a better way of saying this, Mike specializes in low-budget hockey. What I mean by this is that Mike takes players of slightly less than stellar caliber (because the best of the best generally accept full scholarships at other programs) and molds them into a team that can compete on the national stage. [/q]They would have said this about Bill Self a few years ago. Those are the guys who get the chance at the big time. I'm hoping Schafer stays, but his success under restrictions will make him MORE attractive to other programs, not less.
___________________________
quality tweets | bluesky (twitter 2) | ALAB Series podcast | Other podcasts and writing
quality tweets | bluesky (twitter 2) | ALAB Series podcast | Other podcasts and writing
Re: Whither Mike Schafer?
Posted by: KeithK (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: March 28, 2005 02:58PM
I don't know if I agree. Certainly Schafer has designed a system that works well on a "low budget". But he is recruiting some solid talent - look at the NHL draft picks on the roster. I think what he has done is design a system that will work given the resources that are available, recruit players who will buy into the system and then make sure that the team has the discipline to play the system. It's not at all clear that this approach wouldn't work with a higher level of talent at the college or pro level. Certainly it is harder to force players to do things your way in the pros, but I think it is possible with patience and commitment from ownership.
Re: Whither Mike Schafer?
Posted by: mgl11 (---.client.comcast.net)
Date: March 28, 2005 03:55PM
Schafer will make the jump to the NHL when Nieuwendyk is ready to take over the ship at Cornell.
Ok, that's really far-fetched -- but Schafer isn't going to be around forever (and I don't see him going to another school...though, I can bet that his phone will ring when Parker or York is ready is step down) and I think Nieuwendyk would be a pretty good draw for recuits....
Ok, that's really far-fetched -- but Schafer isn't going to be around forever (and I don't see him going to another school...though, I can bet that his phone will ring when Parker or York is ready is step down) and I think Nieuwendyk would be a pretty good draw for recuits....
Re: Whither Mike Schafer?
Posted by: DeltaOne81 (---.bos.east.verizon.net)
Date: March 28, 2005 04:13PM
The one thing we also have towards him staying here (or at least in the college realm, and I can't ever see Mike leaving for anything less than the NHL or AHL) is that he's known for being such a damn good recruiter, and in the pros, coaches don't do that. Neither does the GM for that matter, 98% of the time, the highest check wins, there's no such thing as recruting, just negotiating.
So who knows if his skill set would transfer over. He's a great strategic coach, but you can't excute a strategy without the right players. Its distinctly possible he wouldn't fair so well in the pros, although he could also do great. The question is if he'd want to risk finding out, and if some team would want to risk it also. Let's hope not
So who knows if his skill set would transfer over. He's a great strategic coach, but you can't excute a strategy without the right players. Its distinctly possible he wouldn't fair so well in the pros, although he could also do great. The question is if he'd want to risk finding out, and if some team would want to risk it also. Let's hope not
Re: Whither Mike Schafer?
Posted by: Scersk '97 (---.dsl.emhril.ameritech.net)
Date: March 28, 2005 04:16PM
I don't think Nieuwendyk is that far-fetched. I would'nt be surprised to see Casey Jones, though.
Re: Whither Mike Schafer?
Posted by: Kyle Rose (---.akamai.com)
Date: March 28, 2005 04:18PM
[Q]DeltaOne81 Wrote:
The question is if he'd want to risk finding out[/q]
There's no saying "you can't go back" that applies here: see Pete Carroll. So, he could try it, and come back if he doesn't like it. Not that I'd be in favor of that, but he needs to do what's best for him.
Cheers,
Kyle
The question is if he'd want to risk finding out[/q]
There's no saying "you can't go back" that applies here: see Pete Carroll. So, he could try it, and come back if he doesn't like it. Not that I'd be in favor of that, but he needs to do what's best for him.
Cheers,
Kyle
Re: Whither Mike Schafer?
Posted by: mjh89 (---.resnet.cornell.edu)
Date: March 28, 2005 04:42PM
Are the salaries of Schafer, Brekke, and Garrow made public?
Re: Whither Mike Schafer?
Posted by: billhoward (---.union01.nj.comcast.net)
Date: March 28, 2005 05:00PM
Mark Mazzolini at Harvard was making an estimated $100K last year when he decamped for the Green Bay Gamblers.
The hockey coach's job at Cornell is endowed but you'd only be guessing at the salary from endowment. You could draw down 5% of a $2 million endowment and come up with $100K, but would that be for salary or salary and benefits? Or could the U feel comfortable drawing down 7%-8%?
Assistant coaches have to love the game and/or have a working spouse.
The hockey coach's job at Cornell is endowed but you'd only be guessing at the salary from endowment. You could draw down 5% of a $2 million endowment and come up with $100K, but would that be for salary or salary and benefits? Or could the U feel comfortable drawing down 7%-8%?
Assistant coaches have to love the game and/or have a working spouse.
Re: Whither Mike Schafer?
Posted by: atb9 (---.nycap.res.rr.com)
Date: March 28, 2005 05:20PM
[Q]billhoward Wrote:
Mark Mazzolini at Harvard was making an estimated $100K last year when he decamped for the Green Bay Gamblers.
The hockey coach's job at Cornell is endowed but you'd only be guessing at the salary from endowment. You could draw down 5% of a $2 million endowment and come up with $100K, but would that be for salary or salary and benefits? Or could the U feel comfortable drawing down 7%-8%?
Assistant coaches have to love the game and/or have a working spouse. [/q]
There are also Phys Ed classes and hockey camps that also figure into the equation but I have no idea what it adds up to.
Mark Mazzolini at Harvard was making an estimated $100K last year when he decamped for the Green Bay Gamblers.
The hockey coach's job at Cornell is endowed but you'd only be guessing at the salary from endowment. You could draw down 5% of a $2 million endowment and come up with $100K, but would that be for salary or salary and benefits? Or could the U feel comfortable drawing down 7%-8%?
Assistant coaches have to love the game and/or have a working spouse. [/q]
There are also Phys Ed classes and hockey camps that also figure into the equation but I have no idea what it adds up to.
___________________________
24 is the devil
24 is the devil
Re: Whither Mike Schafer?
Posted by: Weder (---.client.comcast.net)
Date: March 28, 2005 05:38PM
The football offensive coordinator and women's basketball coach job postings on the CU Web site advertise pay at starting around $32K/year -- assuming they get paid year-round.
Re: Whither Mike Schafer?
Posted by: CU at Stanford (---.Stanford.EDU)
Date: March 28, 2005 05:49PM
I think a 5% payout on Cornell's endowment is a generous estimate. Trustees are very conserviative on this. Harvard's payout is around 4% these days, maybe just south of 4%. Stanford is perhaps most aggressive, at a fraction north of 5%.
Don't think the salaries of our coaches are public knowledge, as Cornell is not a wholely public institution, and the Athletics Department belongs to the private portion of CU.
Don't think the salaries of our coaches are public knowledge, as Cornell is not a wholely public institution, and the Athletics Department belongs to the private portion of CU.
Re: Whither Mike Schafer?
Posted by: Trotsky (---.frdrmd.adelphia.net)
Date: March 28, 2005 05:50PM
Schafer will have other options. Whether he exercises them depends in large part on how comfortable the Athletic Department and administration make him feel. And *that* makes me a little nervous, because the Athletic Department and administration haven't got a clue. The former is mired in second rate politics and envy, the latter is up in an ivory tower with no concept of what Schafer means to the school and the alumni.
He's staying because he loves it here. If the morons and paper shufflers piss him off enough, he'll leave. Just like you at your job.
He's staying because he loves it here. If the morons and paper shufflers piss him off enough, he'll leave. Just like you at your job.
Re: Whither Mike Schafer?
Posted by: Scersk '97 (---.dsl.emhril.ameritech.net)
Date: March 28, 2005 06:22PM
[Q]Trotsky Wrote:
Whether he exercises them depends in large part on how comfortable the Athletic Department and administration make him feel. And *that* makes me a little nervous, because the Athletic Department... is mired in second rate politics and envy...[/q]
My simple equation:
Andy Noel =
Whether he exercises them depends in large part on how comfortable the Athletic Department and administration make him feel. And *that* makes me a little nervous, because the Athletic Department... is mired in second rate politics and envy...[/q]
My simple equation:
Andy Noel =
Re: Whither Mike Schafer?
Posted by: Mike Nevin (---.twcny.res.rr.com)
Date: March 28, 2005 07:05PM
For comparison sake -- I thought I saw that the ND head coach was getting a contract worth somewhere around $400k/yr after they won their national championship a few years back. I can't remember where I saw that-- USCHO ? , but I am pretty sure that is the amount, because I definitely remember it being a very surprising amount of cash for a hockey coach.
I really hope Schafer loves it here. I hope he stays convinced that he can win a national championship here. And, I hope he can do it. But if it doesn't happen in a few years, I could see him going to one of the non-ECAC perennial contenders, where the road to the national championship is a little easier. I think there are only a handful of college jobs that would be a step up from coaching at Cornell, but if he gets frustrated here, and he wants a national championship, I could see him going somewhere.
I really hope Schafer loves it here. I hope he stays convinced that he can win a national championship here. And, I hope he can do it. But if it doesn't happen in a few years, I could see him going to one of the non-ECAC perennial contenders, where the road to the national championship is a little easier. I think there are only a handful of college jobs that would be a step up from coaching at Cornell, but if he gets frustrated here, and he wants a national championship, I could see him going somewhere.
Re: Whither Mike Schafer?
Posted by: Mike Nevin (---.twcny.res.rr.com)
Date: March 28, 2005 07:20PM
[Q] For comparison sake -- I thought I saw that the ND head coach was getting a contract worth somewhere around $400k/yr after they won their national championship a few years back. I can't remember where I saw that-- USCHO ? , but I am pretty sure that is the amount, because I definitely remember it being a very surprising amount of cash for a hockey coach. [/Q]
-- Actually, it was only topping out at 200k/yr in 2008/2009 if he stayed. Sorry.
Mike
-- Actually, it was only topping out at 200k/yr in 2008/2009 if he stayed. Sorry.
Mike
Re: Whither Mike Schafer?
Posted by: atb9 (---.nycap.res.rr.com)
Date: March 28, 2005 07:20PM
[Q]Mike Nevin Wrote:
For comparison sake -- I thought I saw that the ND head coach was getting a contract worth somewhere around $400k/yr after they won their national championship a few years back. I can't remember where I saw that-- USCHO ? , but I am pretty sure that is the amount, because I definitely remember it being a very surprising amount of cash for a hockey coach. [/q]
Also for comparison sake, NoDak has a stadium with leather seats.
Hakstol has got to be the highest paid college hockey coach and I'm sure they made the figure public because of that reason.
For comparison sake -- I thought I saw that the ND head coach was getting a contract worth somewhere around $400k/yr after they won their national championship a few years back. I can't remember where I saw that-- USCHO ? , but I am pretty sure that is the amount, because I definitely remember it being a very surprising amount of cash for a hockey coach. [/q]
Also for comparison sake, NoDak has a stadium with leather seats.
Hakstol has got to be the highest paid college hockey coach and I'm sure they made the figure public because of that reason.
___________________________
24 is the devil
24 is the devil
Re: Whither Mike Schafer?
Posted by: billhoward (---.union01.nj.comcast.net)
Date: March 28, 2005 09:56PM
The effect of everyone knowing everyone else's salary is it leads to salary creep. Proabably it's gone overboard in the NBA, MLB, NHL and among the 25 top D1 basketball coaches. I think it's not going to hurt college hockey anytime soon.
Schafer is one of America's ten best hockey coaches (five?) and he makes what? Peanuts compared to what one of the nation's ten best history profs makes. Probably he has to weigh the pressure of recruiting and practice against a very nice off-season family lifestyle in Ithaca (at least on days when daddy can come home for dinner). Cornell pays medical, it has (?) a decent retirement plan, and does it put your kids through Cornell for free or not any more (?) if they get in. But still you're left with that feeling that a guy near the pinnacle of his chosen profession is not going to be looking at an Audi A8 as his next car.
Question: The coach at North Dakota makes $200K a year. What in heck in North Dakota can you spend it on, unless you want to pay cash for a big granite cliff and have someone carve pictures on it?
Schafer is one of America's ten best hockey coaches (five?) and he makes what? Peanuts compared to what one of the nation's ten best history profs makes. Probably he has to weigh the pressure of recruiting and practice against a very nice off-season family lifestyle in Ithaca (at least on days when daddy can come home for dinner). Cornell pays medical, it has (?) a decent retirement plan, and does it put your kids through Cornell for free or not any more (?) if they get in. But still you're left with that feeling that a guy near the pinnacle of his chosen profession is not going to be looking at an Audi A8 as his next car.
Question: The coach at North Dakota makes $200K a year. What in heck in North Dakota can you spend it on, unless you want to pay cash for a big granite cliff and have someone carve pictures on it?
Re: Whither Mike Schafer?
Posted by: Al DeFlorio (---.hsd1.ma.comcast.net)
Date: March 28, 2005 09:57PM
[Q]atb9 Wrote:
Mike Nevin Wrote:
For comparison sake -- I thought I saw that the ND head coach was getting a contract worth somewhere around $400k/yr after they won their national championship a few years back. I can't remember where I saw that-- USCHO ? , but I am pretty sure that is the amount, because I definitely remember it being a very surprising amount of cash for a hockey coach. [/Q]
Also for comparison sake, NoDak has a stadium with leather seats.
Hakstol has got to be the highest paid college hockey coach and I'm sure they made the figure public because of that reason.[/q]
I'll bet Parker and York make some pretty big bucks. Jackie-boy turned down offers from the Bruins in both 1991 and 1997.
Interesting five-year-old USCHO article on Parker here, by the way:
[www.uscho.com]
Favorite Parker quote for "vintage" ECAC fans:
"I always thought that the ECAC hockey league of old was the best hockey league you could play in because there were 17 teams in the league and only eight of them made the playoffs," says Parker. "So the whole regular season was unbelievably competitive. And when you made the playoffs, it was single elimination all the way through."
And another:
"The ECAC championship was a premier event. Nobody was drawing like the ECAC was drawing. We'd go to the ECAC championship at the Boston Garden and we'd have 13,909 [a sellout]. Then we'd go to the national championship the next week in front of sometimes 2,000 people.
"When I was a junior, for example, we played Cornell in the ECAC final. They had Kenny Dryden and a great team and we had Herb Wakabayashi and a great team. We were the two premier teams in the nation actually.
"It was absolutely mobbed. You couldn't get a ticket. It was one of the biggest crowds they ever had at the Garden, including Celtics playoffs or Bruins. From '65 on, the Friday night ECAC semifinal round was the hottest ticket in college hockey."
___________________________
Al DeFlorio '65
Re: Whither Mike Schafer?
Posted by: billhoward (---.union01.nj.comcast.net)
Date: March 28, 2005 10:09PM
Parker is amazing to have survived three decades in the pressure cooker at BU. When he was a young coach he always seemed on the verge of self-induced ulcers. Maybe the new place should be called Agganis Rink at the Tagamet Center.
Does Hockey East fill the Garden now? You're right that the ECAC tourneys were incredible before the ECAC-HE breakup and you knew if you won the ECACs you were in the NCAAs and you had a 25% chance (statistically) of coming out the national champion since only four teams played and typically two were ECAC.
(The other thing a university *could* do is have a hotshot Wall Street alum (even BU has some of them, even BC does even if Larry Summers says it's unusual to see Catholics on Wall Street) as his non-financial conribution to the U personally take care of Jackie's or Jerry's (or Mike's?) investments and make sure he gets in at the head of the line for safe IPOs (oxymoron?) or at least into seeming sure-fire funds. Maybe the coach's big worry is not living on $100K now at 40 but having something go wrong coaching-wise and being out of hockey coaching and just about broke at 50 when his kids are heading off to college.)
Does Hockey East fill the Garden now? You're right that the ECAC tourneys were incredible before the ECAC-HE breakup and you knew if you won the ECACs you were in the NCAAs and you had a 25% chance (statistically) of coming out the national champion since only four teams played and typically two were ECAC.
(The other thing a university *could* do is have a hotshot Wall Street alum (even BU has some of them, even BC does even if Larry Summers says it's unusual to see Catholics on Wall Street) as his non-financial conribution to the U personally take care of Jackie's or Jerry's (or Mike's?) investments and make sure he gets in at the head of the line for safe IPOs (oxymoron?) or at least into seeming sure-fire funds. Maybe the coach's big worry is not living on $100K now at 40 but having something go wrong coaching-wise and being out of hockey coaching and just about broke at 50 when his kids are heading off to college.)
Don't overrate Mike Schafer
Posted by: nyiballs (---.jan.bellsouth.net)
Date: March 28, 2005 11:50PM
I'm sorry, but I'm not as much on the Schafer bandwagon as everyone else. He reminds me of Tony Dungy in football. Great knowledge, great preparation, can take a team one step from the top, but is just unable to get them over the hump.
2003 we had the best team in the country, this year we had the best team in the regional, I will not condemn him just yet, but without a frozen four at least next year, I will be fairly convinced that Schafer is not the one to lead Cornell to its next championship.
2003 we had the best team in the country, this year we had the best team in the regional, I will not condemn him just yet, but without a frozen four at least next year, I will be fairly convinced that Schafer is not the one to lead Cornell to its next championship.
Re: Don't overrate Mike Schafer
Posted by: KeithK (---.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net)
Date: March 28, 2005 11:56PM
[Q]nyiballs Wrote:
I'm sorry, but I'm not as much on the Schafer bandwagon as everyone else. He reminds me of Tony Dungy in football. Great knowledge, great preparation, can take a team one step from the top, but is just unable to get them over the hump.
2003 we had the best team in the country, this year we had the best team in the regional, I will not condemn him just yet, but without a frozen four at least next year, I will be fairly convinced that Schafer is not the one to lead Cornell to its next championship.[/q]Naturally. Because there are lots of other coaches out there who have a track record of taking a no-scholarship ECAC team to a national championship. If Schafer doesn't win it all next year we can just go out and get one of them.
I'm sorry, but I'm not as much on the Schafer bandwagon as everyone else. He reminds me of Tony Dungy in football. Great knowledge, great preparation, can take a team one step from the top, but is just unable to get them over the hump.
2003 we had the best team in the country, this year we had the best team in the regional, I will not condemn him just yet, but without a frozen four at least next year, I will be fairly convinced that Schafer is not the one to lead Cornell to its next championship.[/q]Naturally. Because there are lots of other coaches out there who have a track record of taking a no-scholarship ECAC team to a national championship. If Schafer doesn't win it all next year we can just go out and get one of them.
Re: Don't overrate Mike Schafer
Posted by: CUlater 89 (---.nyc.rr.com)
Date: March 29, 2005 12:09AM
[Q]KeithK Wrote:
nyiballs Wrote:
I'm sorry, but I'm not as much on the Schafer bandwagon as everyone else. He reminds me of Tony Dungy in football. Great knowledge, great preparation, can take a team one step from the top, but is just unable to get them over the hump.
2003 we had the best team in the country, this year we had the best team in the regional, I will not condemn him just yet, but without a frozen four at least next year, I will be fairly convinced that Schafer is not the one to lead Cornell to its next championship.[/Q]
Naturally. Because there are lots of other coaches out there who have a track record of taking a no-scholarship ECAC team to a national championship. If Schafer doesn't win it all next year we can just go out and get one of them.[/q]
I think you missed his point. Look at Dean Smith; he put together great squads, some with more heart than others and some with more talent, but until he won the NCAA title in 1982 (and even after that title), many openly doubted his ability to get a team over the hump. Same thing for Roy Williams now. That doesn't mean they're not great coaches or should be fired. Schafer's "problem" is that he appears to have made the program a perennial top 15 squad, or even a perennial NCAA playoff team. There's not much more to do other than win the title.
Re: Don't overrate Mike Schafer
Posted by: billhoward (---.union01.nj.comcast.net)
Date: March 29, 2005 08:37AM
Legends are made and lost based on the butterfly flapping its wings in Tokyo and the wind currents making the slapshot clang off the post and out of, not into, the net, for what would have been the tying goal. It's all so random that it's unfair to say a team or a coach is a success / failure based on the outcome of one game or one season. The 1990s book "Accidental Millionaires" ticked off a lot of people in Silicon Valley because it said their fortunes were due to quirks of timing as much as sheer technical or entrepreneurial genius.
Re: Don't overrate Mike Schafer
Posted by: Kyle Rose (---.krose.org)
Date: March 29, 2005 08:47AM
[Q]billhoward Wrote:
Legends are made and lost based on the butterfly flapping its wings in Tokyo and the wind currents making the slapshot clang off the post and out of, not into, the net, for what would have been the tying goal. It's all so random that it's unfair to say a team or a coach is a success / failure based on the outcome of one game or one season. The 1990s book "Accidental Millionaires" ticked off a lot of people in Silicon Valley because it said their fortunes were due to quirks of timing as much as sheer technical or entrepreneurial genius. [/q]
This argument is crap no matter how many times it's repeated.
The fact is that by creating your own opportunities, you make conditions more conducive to your success. A good analogy to hockey would be: slamming the puck on-net more often leads to a statistically-significant increase in the likelihood of hitting the post, some of which wind up going in. No, there's no guarantee; but more opportunities = greater chance for success.
Cheers,
Kyle
Legends are made and lost based on the butterfly flapping its wings in Tokyo and the wind currents making the slapshot clang off the post and out of, not into, the net, for what would have been the tying goal. It's all so random that it's unfair to say a team or a coach is a success / failure based on the outcome of one game or one season. The 1990s book "Accidental Millionaires" ticked off a lot of people in Silicon Valley because it said their fortunes were due to quirks of timing as much as sheer technical or entrepreneurial genius. [/q]
This argument is crap no matter how many times it's repeated.
The fact is that by creating your own opportunities, you make conditions more conducive to your success. A good analogy to hockey would be: slamming the puck on-net more often leads to a statistically-significant increase in the likelihood of hitting the post, some of which wind up going in. No, there's no guarantee; but more opportunities = greater chance for success.
Cheers,
Kyle
Re: Whither Mike Schafer?
Posted by: Trotsky (---.cust-rtr.swbell.net)
Date: March 29, 2005 08:48AM
You lead a team back from oblivion (1993-95 was oblivion, if you were there, you know), people get used to the new standard that *you* set, and then they wonder why if you can go from 15 to 25 wins you can't just snap your fingers and go from 25 to 35.
The way for Cornell to win a national championship is to keep getting to the NCAAs. Keep getting into situations where they can go deep. It may take 1 more trip, or 5, or 10. But with this program and this coach, eventually it will happen.
Then we can start criticizing Schafer for not winning back-to-back.
The way for Cornell to win a national championship is to keep getting to the NCAAs. Keep getting into situations where they can go deep. It may take 1 more trip, or 5, or 10. But with this program and this coach, eventually it will happen.
Then we can start criticizing Schafer for not winning back-to-back.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/29/2005 08:50AM by Trotsky.
Re: Don't overrate Mike Schafer
Posted by: ugarte (---.ny325.east.verizon.net)
Date: March 29, 2005 08:54AM
[Q]nyiballs Wrote:
I'm sorry, but I'm not as much on the Schafer bandwagon as everyone else. He reminds me of Tony Dungy in football. Great knowledge, great preparation, can take a team one step from the top, but is just unable to get them over the hump.
2003 we had the best team in the country, this year we had the best team in the regional, I will not condemn him just yet, but without a frozen four at least next year, I will be fairly convinced that Schafer is not the one to lead Cornell to its next championship.[/q]If you can look at the one-goal losses in 2003 and 2005 and (almost but not quite) conclude that Schafer doesn't have "it," winning one national title probably won't convince you that he has "it" either. In 2003 we were the better team on the ice against UNH, and only a high-sticking call and/or a heartbreaking facemask save away from winning in regulation. On the road this year, Minnesota skated circles around our guys for 50 minutes, but by grinding it out and playing excellent defense the game was still tied at the end of regulation. In both games, Cornell's superior conditioning showed in the way we badly outplayed our opposition at the end of the game.
Schafer has "it." National titles are tough to come by (Dick Umile has 0 as well, right?), so it would be hubris to say it is just a matter of time - particularly (as KeithK pointed out) given the way Schafer is hamstrung by Ivy League recruiting rules - but Cornell hasn't had as good a chance since the early '70s.
I'm sorry, but I'm not as much on the Schafer bandwagon as everyone else. He reminds me of Tony Dungy in football. Great knowledge, great preparation, can take a team one step from the top, but is just unable to get them over the hump.
2003 we had the best team in the country, this year we had the best team in the regional, I will not condemn him just yet, but without a frozen four at least next year, I will be fairly convinced that Schafer is not the one to lead Cornell to its next championship.[/q]If you can look at the one-goal losses in 2003 and 2005 and (almost but not quite) conclude that Schafer doesn't have "it," winning one national title probably won't convince you that he has "it" either. In 2003 we were the better team on the ice against UNH, and only a high-sticking call and/or a heartbreaking facemask save away from winning in regulation. On the road this year, Minnesota skated circles around our guys for 50 minutes, but by grinding it out and playing excellent defense the game was still tied at the end of regulation. In both games, Cornell's superior conditioning showed in the way we badly outplayed our opposition at the end of the game.
Schafer has "it." National titles are tough to come by (Dick Umile has 0 as well, right?), so it would be hubris to say it is just a matter of time - particularly (as KeithK pointed out) given the way Schafer is hamstrung by Ivy League recruiting rules - but Cornell hasn't had as good a chance since the early '70s.
___________________________
quality tweets | bluesky (twitter 2) | ALAB Series podcast | Other podcasts and writing
quality tweets | bluesky (twitter 2) | ALAB Series podcast | Other podcasts and writing
Re: Don't overrate Mike Schafer
Posted by: KeithK (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: March 29, 2005 12:02PM
[Q]CUlater 89 Wrote:
I think you missed his point. Look at Dean Smith; he put together great squads, some with more heart than others and some with more talent, but until he won the NCAA title in 1982 (and even after that title), many openly doubted his ability to get a team over the hump. Same thing for Roy Williams now. That doesn't mean they're not great coaches or should be fired. Schafer's "problem" is that he appears to have made the program a perennial top 15 squad, or even a perennial NCAA playoff team. There's not much more to do other than win the title.[/q]I was reacting to the following line: "I will not condemn him just yet, but without a frozen four at least next year, I will be fairly convinced that Schafer is not the one to lead Cornell to its next championship." I take this to mean that if Schafer can't at least make the FF next year we should look for another coach, because all we would need is another caoch and the national championships would start rolling in. Naturally I'm exaggerating here. But I don't see how you could ask for a better coach than Schafer in terms of results at Cornell in the 95-05 time period. We're in a position to be a frequent title contender. I think there are very few coaches out there who could do this given Cornell's limitations.
Cornell will never have scholarships (well, hopefully). Cornell will always have high admissions standards for athletes (or at least I damn well hope so). Cornell will never leave the Ivy League (USCHO threads about Harvard to HE notwithstanding
). Even if Cornell gets a spanking new arena (god, I hope not) we will never have a 10,000 seat money making machine. Cornell is not likely to be on TV every weekend any time soon. Cornell does not have a natural recruiting advantage in a hockey hotbed next door. Given these constraints Mike Schafer is doing a hell of a job with the hockey program, whether or not he has (yet) brought title #3 to Ithaca.
I think you missed his point. Look at Dean Smith; he put together great squads, some with more heart than others and some with more talent, but until he won the NCAA title in 1982 (and even after that title), many openly doubted his ability to get a team over the hump. Same thing for Roy Williams now. That doesn't mean they're not great coaches or should be fired. Schafer's "problem" is that he appears to have made the program a perennial top 15 squad, or even a perennial NCAA playoff team. There's not much more to do other than win the title.[/q]I was reacting to the following line: "I will not condemn him just yet, but without a frozen four at least next year, I will be fairly convinced that Schafer is not the one to lead Cornell to its next championship." I take this to mean that if Schafer can't at least make the FF next year we should look for another coach, because all we would need is another caoch and the national championships would start rolling in. Naturally I'm exaggerating here. But I don't see how you could ask for a better coach than Schafer in terms of results at Cornell in the 95-05 time period. We're in a position to be a frequent title contender. I think there are very few coaches out there who could do this given Cornell's limitations.
Cornell will never have scholarships (well, hopefully). Cornell will always have high admissions standards for athletes (or at least I damn well hope so). Cornell will never leave the Ivy League (USCHO threads about Harvard to HE notwithstanding
). Even if Cornell gets a spanking new arena (god, I hope not) we will never have a 10,000 seat money making machine. Cornell is not likely to be on TV every weekend any time soon. Cornell does not have a natural recruiting advantage in a hockey hotbed next door. Given these constraints Mike Schafer is doing a hell of a job with the hockey program, whether or not he has (yet) brought title #3 to Ithaca.
Re: Don't underrate Mike Schafer
Posted by: billhoward (---.ziffdavis.com)
Date: March 29, 2005 12:16PM
There is one, correction one and a half, advantages Cornell has: the Ivy League. Michigan is not a crummy school and Minnesota is okay, but if your diploma can read Cornell, that's a huge thing for a lot of people. Most hockey players are going to have to work for a living after college.
So if you're a hockey player and you want a first-class academic experience on a team that's going to be a contender, you have less than a half-dozen choices:
Cornell
Harvard
Dartmouth (recently)
Brown (well, maybe)
plus
Colgate
Colorado College
maybe
Union (but we did say contender)
RPI
Clarkson
not
Princeton or Yale (seldom a contender in hockey)
Our extra half-advantage is the state schools: It makes Cornell more accessible academically, it makes Cornell more affordable even from out of state, and (a Cornellian teaching at Princeton made this point) it means Cornell is the Ivy School with a significant number of middle class kids (families making $40K-$75K are middle class; $100K is not middle class), not just the really rich who don't need scholarship money and the really poor who get scholarship money.
Let us hope Stanford doesn't go D1 in hockey anytime soon.
So if you're a hockey player and you want a first-class academic experience on a team that's going to be a contender, you have less than a half-dozen choices:
Cornell
Harvard
Dartmouth (recently)
Brown (well, maybe)
plus
Colgate
Colorado College
maybe
Union (but we did say contender)
RPI
Clarkson
not
Princeton or Yale (seldom a contender in hockey)
Our extra half-advantage is the state schools: It makes Cornell more accessible academically, it makes Cornell more affordable even from out of state, and (a Cornellian teaching at Princeton made this point) it means Cornell is the Ivy School with a significant number of middle class kids (families making $40K-$75K are middle class; $100K is not middle class), not just the really rich who don't need scholarship money and the really poor who get scholarship money.
Let us hope Stanford doesn't go D1 in hockey anytime soon.
Re: Don't overrate Mike Schafer
Posted by: Scersk '97 (---.dsl.emhril.ameritech.net)
Date: March 29, 2005 12:25PM
[Q]nyiballs Wrote:
I'm sorry, but I'm not as much on the Schafer bandwagon as everyone else. He reminds me of Tony Dungy in football. Great knowledge, great preparation, can take a team one step from the top, but is just unable to get them over the hump.[/q]
Ummm... do you even remember '96 and '97? Those were not national championship quality teams. In '94 and '95 we looked disorganized and lifeless. In '96, we became a team with a mission. (...to beat Vermont, and, unfortunately, never got that final chance.) In '97, a team that had no business being in the final four was one period away from it. The team has been on a mission ever since he came to Ithaca.
He's been building teams to get the kind of recruits that he needs to take us "over the hump." With the visibility created by '96 and '97, he got the classes of '01 and '02. (And '03?) With the visibility created by '02 and '03, he's gotten the classes of '07 and '08. (And '09?) Add in the recruits that he's gotten by developing a network, including the Nanaimo "pipeline." (We might want to call it "back scratching" at this point, since, obviously, the pipeline flows both ways.) With those recruits, he's beginning to smooth out the ups and downs, creating a "dynasty" feel. If '03 was any indication, you get the best recruits six years after visibility, so the class of '09 might be one of his best.
You don't just have the kind of offensive talent that the WCHA schools get fall in your lap. You have to recruit those guys. We haven't had near the program to get any of them until now. Take a look at Barlow, Greening (maybe), and Milo. Those guys were pursued by other teams, I assure you. Greening, especially, seems to have the academic "skillz" to end up at Harvard. I'm glad he'll be here. I wonder if the McRae boys had anything to do with that.
If you think Schafer isn't a great coach, you are either very forgetful, very blind, or very stupid. NYIballs, I've seen your analysis of goaltending here and on other forums, so I know you're not blind. I appreciate your comments, since you obviously know how to write, as any good Cornellian should. Intelligence doesn't seem to be an issue. So, I'm hoping the problem is just being forgetful. Get some perspective. Let this loss sink in a little. Realize how blessed we are. I mean it: blessed by the hockey gods themselves. Our team could've been toiling away in obscurity for the last ten years if Schafer hadn't come along. Right man, right job, right time.
It's still the right time.
I'm sorry, but I'm not as much on the Schafer bandwagon as everyone else. He reminds me of Tony Dungy in football. Great knowledge, great preparation, can take a team one step from the top, but is just unable to get them over the hump.[/q]
Ummm... do you even remember '96 and '97? Those were not national championship quality teams. In '94 and '95 we looked disorganized and lifeless. In '96, we became a team with a mission. (...to beat Vermont, and, unfortunately, never got that final chance.) In '97, a team that had no business being in the final four was one period away from it. The team has been on a mission ever since he came to Ithaca.
He's been building teams to get the kind of recruits that he needs to take us "over the hump." With the visibility created by '96 and '97, he got the classes of '01 and '02. (And '03?) With the visibility created by '02 and '03, he's gotten the classes of '07 and '08. (And '09?) Add in the recruits that he's gotten by developing a network, including the Nanaimo "pipeline." (We might want to call it "back scratching" at this point, since, obviously, the pipeline flows both ways.) With those recruits, he's beginning to smooth out the ups and downs, creating a "dynasty" feel. If '03 was any indication, you get the best recruits six years after visibility, so the class of '09 might be one of his best.
You don't just have the kind of offensive talent that the WCHA schools get fall in your lap. You have to recruit those guys. We haven't had near the program to get any of them until now. Take a look at Barlow, Greening (maybe), and Milo. Those guys were pursued by other teams, I assure you. Greening, especially, seems to have the academic "skillz" to end up at Harvard. I'm glad he'll be here. I wonder if the McRae boys had anything to do with that.
If you think Schafer isn't a great coach, you are either very forgetful, very blind, or very stupid. NYIballs, I've seen your analysis of goaltending here and on other forums, so I know you're not blind. I appreciate your comments, since you obviously know how to write, as any good Cornellian should. Intelligence doesn't seem to be an issue. So, I'm hoping the problem is just being forgetful. Get some perspective. Let this loss sink in a little. Realize how blessed we are. I mean it: blessed by the hockey gods themselves. Our team could've been toiling away in obscurity for the last ten years if Schafer hadn't come along. Right man, right job, right time.
It's still the right time.
Re: Whither Mike Schafer?
Posted by: Kyle Rose (---.akamai.com)
Date: March 29, 2005 12:38PM
Agreed on points pro-Schafer. He's done an incredible job in his time at Cornell. I feel personally blessed to have been first associated with Cornell during his tenure, and not during the dark period preceding it, though I think the same lack of perspective has the opposite effect on some people who are anti-Schafer.
Cheers,
Kyle
Cheers,
Kyle
Re: Don't overrate Mike Schafer
Posted by: adamw (---.benslm01.pa.comcast.net)
Date: March 29, 2005 12:43PM
[Q]nyiballs Wrote:
I'm sorry, but I'm not as much on the Schafer bandwagon as everyone else. He reminds me of Tony Dungy in football. Great knowledge, great preparation, can take a team one step from the top, but is just unable to get them over the hump.
2003 we had the best team in the country, this year we had the best team in the regional, I will not condemn him just yet, but without a frozen four at least next year, I will be fairly convinced that Schafer is not the one to lead Cornell to its next championship.[/q]
I'm sorry - I can't hold my tongue. This is more ridiculous than anything Facetimer ever said. How do you think, exactly, Cornell came to be considered the "best team" in these instances? A coach raises the bar by getting the utmost out of what he has, then he's criticized for failing to win the ultimate prize? What other Ivy League team has come anywhere remotely close to this success in the past 10 years? Let me give a hint: None. Only Vermont, Clarkson and SLU have NCAA wins in that span, and Vermont's and Clarkson's came in 1996.
Mike Schafer doesn't need my defense - His own peers have voted him on top many times. But the biggest indication of great coaching is player improvement year over year, and this almost always happens with Cornell players.
I need to shut up now - because this whole conversation is ridiculous.
I'm sorry, but I'm not as much on the Schafer bandwagon as everyone else. He reminds me of Tony Dungy in football. Great knowledge, great preparation, can take a team one step from the top, but is just unable to get them over the hump.
2003 we had the best team in the country, this year we had the best team in the regional, I will not condemn him just yet, but without a frozen four at least next year, I will be fairly convinced that Schafer is not the one to lead Cornell to its next championship.[/q]
I'm sorry - I can't hold my tongue. This is more ridiculous than anything Facetimer ever said. How do you think, exactly, Cornell came to be considered the "best team" in these instances? A coach raises the bar by getting the utmost out of what he has, then he's criticized for failing to win the ultimate prize? What other Ivy League team has come anywhere remotely close to this success in the past 10 years? Let me give a hint: None. Only Vermont, Clarkson and SLU have NCAA wins in that span, and Vermont's and Clarkson's came in 1996.
Mike Schafer doesn't need my defense - His own peers have voted him on top many times. But the biggest indication of great coaching is player improvement year over year, and this almost always happens with Cornell players.
I need to shut up now - because this whole conversation is ridiculous.
Re: Don't overrate Mike Schafer
Posted by: cth95 (---.dsl.westelcom.com)
Date: March 29, 2005 02:18PM
I will submit that not only have we had consistently the most successful team in both the Ivy and ECAC leagues since Schafer has been here, and it is constantly improving with our recent national visibility bringing in even better recruits, but what team in all of college hockey plays as disciplined and physical for a full 60 minutes season after season as ours does? I am not talking about 1 or 2 games of high penalty minutes like this past weekend in which this disciplined defense actually outscored Minnesota, but the last few seasons for example. Lucia told his team it needed to score quickly in OT because our guys were wearing them out. That shows how well conditioned Schafer has our guys and how hard they work for him.
When you look at our stats of #1 GAA, #1 PP, #1PK, and #48 in penalty minutes which is similar to where we were in both '02 and '03 I think that totally shows what kind of coaching we have. These numbers all come from incredible discipline with no mental lapses and no odd-man rushes almost ever being allowed on the PK and on D as well as patience and good movement on the PP. Just look at the talent Clarkson has compared to how inconsistent their results are for a comparison.
With the discipline shown by our team from its coaching it is just the ability of our school to compete for recruits that have the talent to skate with the guys at some of the big name schools and their scholarships that will ultimately get us to the highest level. And we are almost there.
When you look at our stats of #1 GAA, #1 PP, #1PK, and #48 in penalty minutes which is similar to where we were in both '02 and '03 I think that totally shows what kind of coaching we have. These numbers all come from incredible discipline with no mental lapses and no odd-man rushes almost ever being allowed on the PK and on D as well as patience and good movement on the PP. Just look at the talent Clarkson has compared to how inconsistent their results are for a comparison.
With the discipline shown by our team from its coaching it is just the ability of our school to compete for recruits that have the talent to skate with the guys at some of the big name schools and their scholarships that will ultimately get us to the highest level. And we are almost there.
YIKES!!
Posted by: nyiballs (---.sw.biz.rr.com)
Date: March 29, 2005 04:16PM
I think people misconstrued and over-read into my comments. So let me rephrase...
Mike Schafer is a terrific college coach... no question. He is probably the best recruiter in the country... no question. He is one of the most knowledgable coaches in the country... no question. He puts together a team year in and year out that can be competetive... no question.
My only question is whether or not he can take the program over the top. The fact that I can even ask this question is a remarkable one based on all there is going against us and all the ivy league schools. I do ask this though, because when push comes to shove, the team always seems to take a half step back. We've had great regular seasons, but come crunchtime we've, at least in my opinion, not lived up to the potential. 2003, we lost that game... a waved off goal shouldn't derail a team that only lost 3 times all year. 2004 we got swept at home in the first round. This year we got Minnesota to play into our hands, but couldn't finish them off.
I'm just saying that when the stakes are the highest, the team seems to be at its worst... that being a relative term, but still. So it is this that I am questioning. And I don't say that it is Schafer's fault, but you have to start somewhere.
Mike Schafer is a terrific college coach... no question. He is probably the best recruiter in the country... no question. He is one of the most knowledgable coaches in the country... no question. He puts together a team year in and year out that can be competetive... no question.
My only question is whether or not he can take the program over the top. The fact that I can even ask this question is a remarkable one based on all there is going against us and all the ivy league schools. I do ask this though, because when push comes to shove, the team always seems to take a half step back. We've had great regular seasons, but come crunchtime we've, at least in my opinion, not lived up to the potential. 2003, we lost that game... a waved off goal shouldn't derail a team that only lost 3 times all year. 2004 we got swept at home in the first round. This year we got Minnesota to play into our hands, but couldn't finish them off.
I'm just saying that when the stakes are the highest, the team seems to be at its worst... that being a relative term, but still. So it is this that I am questioning. And I don't say that it is Schafer's fault, but you have to start somewhere.
Re: Whither Mike Schafer?
Posted by: DeltaOne81 (---.raytheon.com)
Date: March 29, 2005 04:28PM
I think we got you and you're still very wrong 
The fact is, when the stakes are the highest, the team is playing their hardest competition. The team being at their worst this year might have been the games @ Union or @ SLU, games they managed to win anyway, though they should have won much easier.
Losing in OT to a fast team on Olympic ice, a surface that only the seniors had ever set foot on for a college game, in their home arena should be just about anyone's "best". I agree that you're very knowledgeable, nyiballs, and reading your posts on USCHO is always enlightening (well, usually ), but it seems to me you're getting far to close to a typical USCHOer, albeit in a much nicer tone.
You can't judge everything by the results, and certainly not results over a 4 year span. By the time you get to the level of the regional finals in the NCAA tournament, whether you make it or not seems to me to pretty much be a crap shoot. You have the skills, the tools, and the system to be very successful, but you're playing against teams who can say the same thing. Regardless of score, how many "elite 8" games are not very competitive, can't go either way?
You keep getting to that level, one year a couple more bounces go your way, and you're being carried down College Ave as National Champs? One bounce doesn't, and you don't have "it"?
Schafer has given us a legitimate shot to be contending for the national title, and to be one of the best teams in the country, 3 of the last 4 years. Keep that up for another decade or two, and the odds of us ending the season on a win, hardware in hand, is pretty good.
The fact is, when the stakes are the highest, the team is playing their hardest competition. The team being at their worst this year might have been the games @ Union or @ SLU, games they managed to win anyway, though they should have won much easier.
Losing in OT to a fast team on Olympic ice, a surface that only the seniors had ever set foot on for a college game, in their home arena should be just about anyone's "best". I agree that you're very knowledgeable, nyiballs, and reading your posts on USCHO is always enlightening (well, usually
), but it seems to me you're getting far to close to a typical USCHOer, albeit in a much nicer tone.
You can't judge everything by the results, and certainly not results over a 4 year span. By the time you get to the level of the regional finals in the NCAA tournament, whether you make it or not seems to me to pretty much be a crap shoot. You have the skills, the tools, and the system to be very successful, but you're playing against teams who can say the same thing. Regardless of score, how many "elite 8" games are not very competitive, can't go either way?
You keep getting to that level, one year a couple more bounces go your way, and you're being carried down College Ave as National Champs? One bounce doesn't, and you don't have "it"?
Schafer has given us a legitimate shot to be contending for the national title, and to be one of the best teams in the country, 3 of the last 4 years. Keep that up for another decade or two, and the odds of us ending the season on a win, hardware in hand, is pretty good.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/29/2005 05:12PM by DeltaOne81.
Re: Whither Mike Schafer?
Posted by: CU at Stanford (---.Stanford.EDU)
Date: March 29, 2005 04:42PM
nyiballs...
You are so lucky...you don't sound like you were a Cornell fan during the McCutcheon era. Do you know how it felt to have gone to the Boston Garden (uh, I mean, Bah-stan Gah-den) four times and never came home with the ECAC championship? How about a long losing streak at home at Lynah?
Cornell lost to Harvard (uh, OK, Hah-vahd) on January 8, by a 0-1 score. Cornell lost to Minnesota on Sunday, by a 1-2 score in overtime. In between, Cornell went 18-0-1 and won two regular-season and one post-season championships. For an Ivy League school that does not offer athletic scholarships, Cornell did GREAT.
Thank you, Schafer, is all I want to say.
You are so lucky...you don't sound like you were a Cornell fan during the McCutcheon era. Do you know how it felt to have gone to the Boston Garden (uh, I mean, Bah-stan Gah-den) four times and never came home with the ECAC championship? How about a long losing streak at home at Lynah?
Cornell lost to Harvard (uh, OK, Hah-vahd) on January 8, by a 0-1 score. Cornell lost to Minnesota on Sunday, by a 1-2 score in overtime. In between, Cornell went 18-0-1 and won two regular-season and one post-season championships. For an Ivy League school that does not offer athletic scholarships, Cornell did GREAT.
Thank you, Schafer, is all I want to say.
Re: Whither Mike Schafer?
Posted by: nyiballs (---.sw.biz.rr.com)
Date: March 29, 2005 05:31PM
[Q]DeltaOne81 Wrote:
I think we got you and you're still very wrong
The fact is, when the stakes are the highest, the team is playing their hardest competition. The team being at their worst this year might have been the games @ Union or @ SLU, games they managed to win anyway, though they should have won much easier.
Losing in OT to a fast team on Olympic ice, a surface that only the seniors had ever set foot on for a college game, in their home arena should be just about anyone's "best". I agree that you're very knowledgeable, nyiballs, and reading your posts on USCHO is always enlightening (well, usually ), but it seems to me you're getting far to close to a typical USCHOer, albeit in a much nicer tone.
You can't judge everything by the results, and certainly not results over a 4 year span. By the time you get to the level of the regional finals in the NCAA tournament, whether you make it or not seems to me to pretty much be a crap shoot. You have the skills, the tools, and the system to be very successful, but you're playing against teams who can say the same thing. Regardless of score, how many "elite 8" games are not very competitive, can't go either way?
You keep getting to that level, one year a couple more bounces go your way, and you're being carried down College Ave as National Champs? One bounce doesn't, and you don't have "it"?
Schafer has given us a legitimate shot to be contending for the national title, and to be one of the best teams in the country, 3 of the last 4 years. Keep that up for another decade or two, and the odds of us ending the season on a win, hardware in hand, is pretty good.
Edited 1 times. Last edit at 03/29/05 05:12PM by DeltaOne81.[/q]
Well.. I guess it's just a difference in philosophy then. As a player, you were always judged by your results. But ultimately, the goal is to win it all. Granted and conceded that Mike Schafer has put this team in a position to have more chances to do that, and maybe it's just frustration on my part, but notwithstanding the chances we've had, the results have been the same. As far as I'm concerned, we could lose 2-1 in OT or 5-0. In the end it's still a loss.
I will end it at this... The sample size of the past few years is not enough to solidify my opinion (which I stated in my first post). However, when you have such a quick turnover as you do in college, you have to strike while the iron/your team is hot. 2003 and 2005 were those chances. You just don't have that luxury in college sports to build a dynasty. I think next year is a key year as we keep most of the core together and bring in a pretty strong freshman class. But we shall see...
I think we got you and you're still very wrong
The fact is, when the stakes are the highest, the team is playing their hardest competition. The team being at their worst this year might have been the games @ Union or @ SLU, games they managed to win anyway, though they should have won much easier.
Losing in OT to a fast team on Olympic ice, a surface that only the seniors had ever set foot on for a college game, in their home arena should be just about anyone's "best". I agree that you're very knowledgeable, nyiballs, and reading your posts on USCHO is always enlightening (well, usually ), but it seems to me you're getting far to close to a typical USCHOer, albeit in a much nicer tone.
You can't judge everything by the results, and certainly not results over a 4 year span. By the time you get to the level of the regional finals in the NCAA tournament, whether you make it or not seems to me to pretty much be a crap shoot. You have the skills, the tools, and the system to be very successful, but you're playing against teams who can say the same thing. Regardless of score, how many "elite 8" games are not very competitive, can't go either way?
You keep getting to that level, one year a couple more bounces go your way, and you're being carried down College Ave as National Champs? One bounce doesn't, and you don't have "it"?
Schafer has given us a legitimate shot to be contending for the national title, and to be one of the best teams in the country, 3 of the last 4 years. Keep that up for another decade or two, and the odds of us ending the season on a win, hardware in hand, is pretty good.
Edited 1 times. Last edit at 03/29/05 05:12PM by DeltaOne81.[/q]
Well.. I guess it's just a difference in philosophy then. As a player, you were always judged by your results. But ultimately, the goal is to win it all. Granted and conceded that Mike Schafer has put this team in a position to have more chances to do that, and maybe it's just frustration on my part, but notwithstanding the chances we've had, the results have been the same. As far as I'm concerned, we could lose 2-1 in OT or 5-0. In the end it's still a loss.
I will end it at this... The sample size of the past few years is not enough to solidify my opinion (which I stated in my first post). However, when you have such a quick turnover as you do in college, you have to strike while the iron/your team is hot. 2003 and 2005 were those chances. You just don't have that luxury in college sports to build a dynasty. I think next year is a key year as we keep most of the core together and bring in a pretty strong freshman class. But we shall see...
Re: Whither Mike Schafer?
Posted by: cth95 (---.dsl.westelcom.com)
Date: March 29, 2005 05:37PM
I have to agree with DeltaOne and CU. Look at all the coaches who are thought of as great in college basketball. Most have coached for 20 or so years and have a couple of national titles along with numerous league titles and many late runs in the post season. Other than Wooden with UCLA name one coach with a long list of national titles. Having our team knocking on the door more and more frequently over his coaching career is a huge success, especially with the recruiting disadvantages. In any of these one-and-out tournaments it is just a matter of timing when a couple bounces go your way instead of against you.
It was frustrating watching the team go flat against NH in '03, but they still came back with a vengeance in the third period and did not die when they were down 3-0. They fought back against OSU and won and then they kept battling against Minnesota in about the least favorable conditions possible to begin to turn the tide this past weekend. No team is perfect for 60 minutes, every game, but I think it says a lot for Schafer that his teams never give up and usually outplay their opponents in the third period and overtime.
It was frustrating watching the team go flat against NH in '03, but they still came back with a vengeance in the third period and did not die when they were down 3-0. They fought back against OSU and won and then they kept battling against Minnesota in about the least favorable conditions possible to begin to turn the tide this past weekend. No team is perfect for 60 minutes, every game, but I think it says a lot for Schafer that his teams never give up and usually outplay their opponents in the third period and overtime.
Don't Tread on Me
Posted by: nyiballs (---.sw.biz.rr.com)
Date: March 29, 2005 05:47PM
I think I am being attacked a little unfairly here. I'm not trying to convince anyone to feel how I do, I am just letting you know that there are other opinions (including mine 
) out there that can be explored. I'd like to think I am somewhat knowledgable in these areas, and I think you can all agree that my arguments are not based on false logic, just facts. And the conflict of opinion solely occurs at the conclusion. That's fine with me.
My reply to Delta expounds a little further on my feelings if you care to read. But at this point I think any further comments by myself on the issue will only dig me a deeper grave.
) out there that can be explored. I'd like to think I am somewhat knowledgable in these areas, and I think you can all agree that my arguments are not based on false logic, just facts. And the conflict of opinion solely occurs at the conclusion. That's fine with me.
My reply to Delta expounds a little further on my feelings if you care to read. But at this point I think any further comments by myself on the issue will only dig me a deeper grave.
Re: Whither Mike Schafer?
Posted by: jtwcornell91 (---.loyno.edu)
Date: March 29, 2005 06:04PM
[Q]DeltaOne81 Wrote:
The fact is, when the stakes are the highest, the team is playing their hardest competition.[/q]
I think you've hit the nail on the head. In two of the last three seasons, we've has teams that were by any measure among the top six or eight in the country. Any game between teams at that level is going to be more or less a tossup. To win it all, you need to win two or three games in a row against that level of competition, so even if you are an elite program you should expect to win the title maybe once every five trips to the dance. In 2003 and 2005, we've had three of these toss-up games (BC, UNH, and Minnesota). All three were decided by one goal: one win and two losses. If you flip a coin and it comes up tails two out of three times, will you accuse the coin of underachieving?
Last year losing to Clarkson was a disappointment, but last year was a rebuilding year, and really, finishing second in the ECAC was a whole lot better than many of us expected for the regular season. So I wouldn't put it in the same category of championship-caliber teams. (As evidenced by the fact that we didn't do well enough overall to get an at-large bid.)
The fact is, when the stakes are the highest, the team is playing their hardest competition.[/q]
I think you've hit the nail on the head. In two of the last three seasons, we've has teams that were by any measure among the top six or eight in the country. Any game between teams at that level is going to be more or less a tossup. To win it all, you need to win two or three games in a row against that level of competition, so even if you are an elite program you should expect to win the title maybe once every five trips to the dance. In 2003 and 2005, we've had three of these toss-up games (BC, UNH, and Minnesota). All three were decided by one goal: one win and two losses. If you flip a coin and it comes up tails two out of three times, will you accuse the coin of underachieving?
Last year losing to Clarkson was a disappointment, but last year was a rebuilding year, and really, finishing second in the ECAC was a whole lot better than many of us expected for the regular season. So I wouldn't put it in the same category of championship-caliber teams. (As evidenced by the fact that we didn't do well enough overall to get an at-large bid.)
Re: Don't Tread on Me
Posted by: Jeff Hopkins '82 (---.airproducts.com)
Date: March 29, 2005 06:15PM
I haven't felt this good about Cornell's chances to win consistently since I was a freshman. And that all comes down to Schafer: his ability to recruit, his ability to get the most from his players, and his game-time coaching skills.
I think whoever made the basketball coach analogy was spot on. And I'll add Krzyzewski to the list. He missed winning the championship several times before they won it all. Now he's the example of what you want a coach at an academically superior institution to be. And everybody thinks of him as a man who can win.
Getting close gets you the talent to get closer. Getting closer gets you over the hump and wins the big one. But without the coaching skills, you don't get close in the first place.
It takes time. I still think this year was the unexpected pleasure and that next year will be the year it all comes together.
Not that I'm woofing, mind you.
I think whoever made the basketball coach analogy was spot on. And I'll add Krzyzewski to the list. He missed winning the championship several times before they won it all. Now he's the example of what you want a coach at an academically superior institution to be. And everybody thinks of him as a man who can win.
Getting close gets you the talent to get closer. Getting closer gets you over the hump and wins the big one. But without the coaching skills, you don't get close in the first place.
It takes time. I still think this year was the unexpected pleasure and that next year will be the year it all comes together.
Not that I'm woofing, mind you.
Re: Whither Mike Schafer?
Posted by: DeltaOne81 (---.bos.east.verizon.net)
Date: March 29, 2005 06:31PM
nyiballs, I'm sorry if you feel attacked. I know you don't show up around eLynah much (unless you were using a different name?), so I don't want your first experience here to be a negative. I read your posts on USCHO and wished you could be around here more often. You have some great stuff to contribute and I hope you continue to come back.
Again, I'm sorry if you feel attacked. I am interested in this debate. It is an interesting and important discussion. Discussing and debating and arguing is half the fun around these boards, and your input is very welcome. I hope you don't take our disagreement as a sign of anything else.
I have to say, watching some of the games this weekend, I know where your feelings are coming from. Perhaps I can rephrase, but I definitely did think once or twice, "maybe this system just can't really compete at the upper levels." Now, its Schafer's system, so I think me thinking the system, and you thinking Schafer, is pretty much the same feeling. Seeing our team get outskated, it wasn't any fun. I don't know if I'd say "outplayed", but I do think they definitely looked outplayed, although that doesn't mean it wasn't an intentional choice to start off.
But then I think back, to UNH in 2002, Mankato, BC, and UNH is 2003. We've played some pretty damn talented teams, and I never remember games looking anything like that. While I'd never whine that it's unfair, I do think the size of the ice made a significant difference in this weekend's games. It sucks that we had to have a very talented team be put at such a disadvantage. But they were.
So when I think back to the previous NCAA years, I know this team, this system, this coach *can* and will compete on the highest levels. Sure, this year we probably *did* get those few bounces, and it was only enough to keep us close. But put us on an even playing field (surface? ) and these teams are equal to any. At least I'm gonna need a long time more to think otherwise.
Again, I'm sorry if you feel attacked. I am interested in this debate. It is an interesting and important discussion. Discussing and debating and arguing is half the fun around these boards, and your input is very welcome. I hope you don't take our disagreement as a sign of anything else.
I have to say, watching some of the games this weekend, I know where your feelings are coming from. Perhaps I can rephrase, but I definitely did think once or twice, "maybe this system just can't really compete at the upper levels." Now, its Schafer's system, so I think me thinking the system, and you thinking Schafer, is pretty much the same feeling. Seeing our team get outskated, it wasn't any fun. I don't know if I'd say "outplayed", but I do think they definitely looked outplayed, although that doesn't mean it wasn't an intentional choice to start off.
But then I think back, to UNH in 2002, Mankato, BC, and UNH is 2003. We've played some pretty damn talented teams, and I never remember games looking anything like that. While I'd never whine that it's unfair, I do think the size of the ice made a significant difference in this weekend's games. It sucks that we had to have a very talented team be put at such a disadvantage. But they were.
So when I think back to the previous NCAA years, I know this team, this system, this coach *can* and will compete on the highest levels. Sure, this year we probably *did* get those few bounces, and it was only enough to keep us close. But put us on an even playing field (surface?
) and these teams are equal to any. At least I'm gonna need a long time more to think otherwise.
Re: Whither Mike Schafer?
Posted by: adamw (209.71.42.---)
Date: March 29, 2005 06:42PM
[Q]nyiballs Wrote:
Well.. I guess it's just a difference in philosophy then. As a player, you were always judged by your results. But ultimately, the goal is to win it all. Granted and conceded that Mike Schafer has put this team in a position to have more chances to do that, and maybe it's just frustration on my part, but notwithstanding the chances we've had, the results have been the same. As far as I'm concerned, we could lose 2-1 in OT or 5-0. In the end it's still a loss.[/q]
Sorry, you're still nuts. ... Of course you only get so many chances, but that's just it. You could be among the 4 best teams and you still only have a 25% chance of winning. Now, how many times is Cornell genuinely going to be among the four best. Any idea how hard that is for an Ivy League school? An ECAC school? It only gets harder every year. It's a monumental achievement just to get to the Frozen Four. To suggest that somehow it's a sign of failure on the part of the coach that the team didn't win it all, is really kind of absurd, frankly.
If you are going to judge an ECAC coach on winning national championships, then basically the league should just fold.
How much better than Boston College do you really even think Cornell was in 2003? The margin of error there was monumentally slim. I feel in my heart that Cornell was *as good* as anyone in the country that year - but even then, you're dealing with teams with much more pure talent. You have to play at your best to win each game - as jtw said.
This year, I think Cornell could have beaten Minnesota on neutral ice - but this team was not as talented and complete as the 2003 team. To get as far as they did is quite an accomplishment - as frustrating as it is to come so close.
I just think you don't really understand how much it took just to get to the final 8, or the final 4. A slip could have happened anywhere along the way. It didn't. Now you're asking to go 2 or 3 more games without a slip. Very, very difficult.
Well.. I guess it's just a difference in philosophy then. As a player, you were always judged by your results. But ultimately, the goal is to win it all. Granted and conceded that Mike Schafer has put this team in a position to have more chances to do that, and maybe it's just frustration on my part, but notwithstanding the chances we've had, the results have been the same. As far as I'm concerned, we could lose 2-1 in OT or 5-0. In the end it's still a loss.[/q]
Sorry, you're still nuts.
... Of course you only get so many chances, but that's just it. You could be among the 4 best teams and you still only have a 25% chance of winning. Now, how many times is Cornell genuinely going to be among the four best. Any idea how hard that is for an Ivy League school? An ECAC school? It only gets harder every year. It's a monumental achievement just to get to the Frozen Four. To suggest that somehow it's a sign of failure on the part of the coach that the team didn't win it all, is really kind of absurd, frankly.
If you are going to judge an ECAC coach on winning national championships, then basically the league should just fold.
How much better than Boston College do you really even think Cornell was in 2003? The margin of error there was monumentally slim. I feel in my heart that Cornell was *as good* as anyone in the country that year - but even then, you're dealing with teams with much more pure talent. You have to play at your best to win each game - as jtw said.
This year, I think Cornell could have beaten Minnesota on neutral ice - but this team was not as talented and complete as the 2003 team. To get as far as they did is quite an accomplishment - as frustrating as it is to come so close.
I just think you don't really understand how much it took just to get to the final 8, or the final 4. A slip could have happened anywhere along the way. It didn't. Now you're asking to go 2 or 3 more games without a slip. Very, very difficult.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/29/2005 06:47PM by adamw.
Re: Don't Tread on Me
Posted by: atb9 (---.nycap.res.rr.com)
Date: March 29, 2005 07:07PM
People are just jumping on the post because the expectations going into 2005 were nothing like the expectations going into 2003. The expectations placed upon the team this season morphed as "the streak" continued to grow and was significantly higher at the end of the season than at the beginning of the season. The expectation of winning a QF game against Minnesota on their own ice to get to the FF was unfathomable just a few months ago and Schafer almost pulled it off!
Keep posting, Scott; I want your insights here and not on USCHO! You'll get a lot of flack on this board because the posters are so damn knowledgeable--On eLynah, I'm one of the idiots...on USCHO, I'm hardly an idiot --but the benefit is your thoughts go a whole heck of a lot further with the true, thoughtful feedback you will get here.
Keep posting, Scott; I want your insights here and not on USCHO!
You'll get a lot of flack on this board because the posters are so damn knowledgeable--On eLynah, I'm one of the idiots...on USCHO, I'm hardly an idiot --but the benefit is your thoughts go a whole heck of a lot further with the true, thoughtful feedback you will get here.___________________________
24 is the devil
24 is the devil
Burn this post
Posted by: nyiballs (---.jan.bellsouth.net)
Date: March 29, 2005 07:26PM
I will say this... this year was certainly a pleasant surprise. It's kinda funny that all these Minnesota fans whoof about how this was a rebuilding year, when truth be told, it was the same for us as well.
In terms of Schafer's system, I have this to say. It is GREAT!!... for long term success. However... it's suspect at best when it comes to the one and done tournament system. If this was a world series or NHL playoff... FANTASTIC! But it's not. And the weakness of it short term was exposed against Minnesota because when you sit back waiting to exploit a team's mistakes, ultimately they still have to make a mistake, and Minnesota only made one while we made two.
However... given the level of recruiting options we have, I support Schafer's system 100%.
Again... he is a great coach, one of the best in college hockey. There just seem to be some guys who are snakebitten when it comes to the big dance. Think Barry Bonds, Dan Marino, Karl Malone, Charles Barkley, etc... All superior in their arena.... but when it came down to that last game... piff!! I am just wondering if Mike Schafer is in that category. Frankly, I don't know.
In terms of Schafer's system, I have this to say. It is GREAT!!... for long term success. However... it's suspect at best when it comes to the one and done tournament system. If this was a world series or NHL playoff... FANTASTIC! But it's not. And the weakness of it short term was exposed against Minnesota because when you sit back waiting to exploit a team's mistakes, ultimately they still have to make a mistake, and Minnesota only made one while we made two.
However... given the level of recruiting options we have, I support Schafer's system 100%.
Again... he is a great coach, one of the best in college hockey. There just seem to be some guys who are snakebitten when it comes to the big dance. Think Barry Bonds, Dan Marino, Karl Malone, Charles Barkley, etc... All superior in their arena.... but when it came down to that last game... piff!! I am just wondering if Mike Schafer is in that category. Frankly, I don't know.
Re: Burn this post
Posted by: atb9 (---.nycap.res.rr.com)
Date: March 29, 2005 07:34PM
[Q]nyiballs Wrote:
Again... he is a great coach, one of the best in college hockey. There just seem to be some guys who are snakebitten when it comes to the big dance. Think Barry Bonds, Dan Marino, Karl Malone, Charles Barkley, etc... All superior in their arena.... but when it came down to that last game... piff!! I am just wondering if Mike Schafer is in that category. Frankly, I don't know.
[/q]
Maybe the better judge for that is the ECAC tournament and not the NCAA tournament?
Again... he is a great coach, one of the best in college hockey. There just seem to be some guys who are snakebitten when it comes to the big dance. Think Barry Bonds, Dan Marino, Karl Malone, Charles Barkley, etc... All superior in their arena.... but when it came down to that last game... piff!! I am just wondering if Mike Schafer is in that category. Frankly, I don't know.
[/q]
Maybe the better judge for that is the ECAC tournament and not the NCAA tournament?
___________________________
24 is the devil
24 is the devil
Re: Burn this post
Posted by: nyiballs (---.jan.bellsouth.net)
Date: March 29, 2005 07:39PM
[Q]atb9 Wrote:
nyiballs Wrote:
Again... he is a great coach, one of the best in college hockey. There just seem to be some guys who are snakebitten when it comes to the big dance. Think Barry Bonds, Dan Marino, Karl Malone, Charles Barkley, etc... All superior in their arena.... but when it came down to that last game... piff!! I am just wondering if Mike Schafer is in that category. Frankly, I don't know.
[/Q]
Maybe the better judge for that is the ECAC tournament and not the NCAA tournament?[/q]
Touche'
But really... I dare you to tell me that Schafer and the team's ultimate goal at the start of the season is to win the ECAC and be happy with just that.
Re: Burn this post
Posted by: atb9 (---.nycap.res.rr.com)
Date: March 29, 2005 07:50PM
[Q]nyiballs Wrote:
But really... I dare you to tell me that Schafer and the team's ultimate goal at the start of the season is to win the ECAC and be happy with just that.[/q]
I would say their goal was to make the NCAA tournament and one of the ways you do that is by winning the ECAC, so I would say, yes, that was one of the goals. But to be happy with just that? Our season hasn't ended that way in the past four years (last year being the exception)! Is a team ever happy with just winning the ECAC? I sure hope not and we didn't! We won a game in the NCAA's this year which is much better than a lot of other ECAC teams in the past 10 years. And just think of how talented Harvard has been these past few years...they didn't win a single NCAA game, I believe. In the past four years, we've won four! I think we've made the ECAC really proud!
Hockey seasons are like relationships. Almost every single one ends with a loss and that loss always hurts.
But really... I dare you to tell me that Schafer and the team's ultimate goal at the start of the season is to win the ECAC and be happy with just that.[/q]
I would say their goal was to make the NCAA tournament and one of the ways you do that is by winning the ECAC, so I would say, yes, that was one of the goals. But to be happy with just that? Our season hasn't ended that way in the past four years (last year being the exception)! Is a team ever happy with just winning the ECAC? I sure hope not and we didn't! We won a game in the NCAA's this year which is much better than a lot of other ECAC teams in the past 10 years. And just think of how talented Harvard has been these past few years...they didn't win a single NCAA game, I believe. In the past four years, we've won four! I think we've made the ECAC really proud!
Hockey seasons are like relationships. Almost every single one ends with a loss and that loss always hurts.
___________________________
24 is the devil
24 is the devil
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/29/2005 07:53PM by atb9.
Re: Burn this post
Posted by: billhoward (---.union01.nj.comcast.net)
Date: March 29, 2005 09:03PM
>>> Hockey seasons are like relationships. Almost every single one ends with a loss and that loss always hurts.
Adam, you are an incurable romantic. Have you ever thought of writing the sentiments that go on greeting cards?
And just like relationships, you get back on the horse and try again after you fall off.
You believe right about Harvard's hockey history: their seniors were models of consistency with four one-and-done NCAA forays. Unlike with Love Story, the pain for them was on not off the ice.
Adam, you are an incurable romantic. Have you ever thought of writing the sentiments that go on greeting cards?
And just like relationships, you get back on the horse and try again after you fall off.
You believe right about Harvard's hockey history: their seniors were models of consistency with four one-and-done NCAA forays. Unlike with Love Story, the pain for them was on not off the ice.
Re: Burn this post
Posted by: nyiballs (---.jan.bellsouth.net)
Date: March 29, 2005 09:43PM
[Q]billhoward Wrote:Unlike with Love Story, the pain for them was on not off the ice. [/q]
well... being from Harvard it was probably both.
well... being from Harvard it was probably both.
Re: Offense is Defense
Posted by: Scersk '97 (---.dsl.emhril.ameritech.net)
Date: March 29, 2005 11:12PM
[Q]nyiballs Wrote:
In terms of Schafer's system, I have this to say. It is GREAT!!... for long term success. However... it's suspect at best when it comes to the one and done tournament system.
[/q]
Here I think you're onto something. The typically small margin for error called for in Schafer's "Our Defense is Awesome" System (SODAS) can backfire. The team has a bad game, lets in three or more goals, can't compensate with a more unusual display of offense and we tie or lose. Over the course of a season, the bad game here or there means nothing; in the one and done, a bad game means your season is over. (I want to make it clear that I thought that neither of the team's games this weekend was bad. They were a bit off their game for OSU, but I thought the Minnesota game was excellent.) Obviously, this happened in 2003. In 2002, they were playing tired against a rested team. This year, I think the bounces just didn't go our way, in the pairwise or at the rink.
What compensates for this small margin for error is an explosive offense. This year's offense, though better than last year's and 2002's, was not as explosive as in 2003. They had moments, but the blowouts came against the expected teams. In 2003, we shellacked every team on the schedule at least once except for Clarkson, Colgate, and Princeton. Basically, an offense that can turn it on when it wants to, not just against the bad teams. Now, ironically, each team showed the opposite behavior in the playoffs--2003 unable to turn on the breakaway offense vs. UNH, 2005 able to turn it on vs. OSU--but that doesn't disprove my hypothesis. What we need, as so many Minnesota fans have pointed out to us, are snipers.
My whole point above in this topic is that, through dogged work and determination, Schafer has put us in a position where we can finally attract snipers, players with natural scoring sense. These guys next year--Kindret, Barlow, Greening--were sought out by a bunch of teams for offense not just for defense and size. He also can probably pick and choose a bit to find snipers that will fit in SODAS. It's the flip side of attracting recruits like Pokulok and Krantz. Schafer goes in and says, "We have guys to play defense. We have the best defense in the nation. I have top defensemen lined up for years. We have guys to pass the puck, some of the best setup men. We have grinders and checkers. Everything is in place, but we're missing one thing. We're missing snipers with good enough hockey sense to play our defensive scheme. We're missing you."
Each and every one of us here knows that Moulson is our only sniper. I mean, come on. Who else is there? We had Chartrand, who only turned it on his senior year, and then we had Vesce, who only showed it his junior year. Sometimes that happens. Look back through the scoring stats sometime: you'll find very few significant point scorers with goals higher than assists. Moulson's been doing that since his freshman year, and we all know that he's not stingy with passing the puck around. What was the difference between 2003 and 2005? Snipers. In 2003 we had two, and sometimes three, at least against Harvard. (Paolini!) In 2005, we have one. In 2006, I hope we have two, or maybe three or four.
Who could develop into a sniper next year? Barlow comes in with the reputation. What happened to Hynes this year? Will he get it back? Do he and Moulson need to be split up on the power play? What about the Abbotts? What about McCutcheon? Who is going to go home this summer and work like Charlie Cook did?
This year was about sustaining the defensive gains of last year while breaking in two outstanding freshmen. We're set. Next year is all about offense.
PS Can someone send an Iggy replacement too? How nice it was to have a shorthanded threat.
In terms of Schafer's system, I have this to say. It is GREAT!!... for long term success. However... it's suspect at best when it comes to the one and done tournament system.
[/q]
Here I think you're onto something. The typically small margin for error called for in Schafer's "Our Defense is Awesome" System (SODAS) can backfire. The team has a bad game, lets in three or more goals, can't compensate with a more unusual display of offense and we tie or lose. Over the course of a season, the bad game here or there means nothing; in the one and done, a bad game means your season is over. (I want to make it clear that I thought that neither of the team's games this weekend was bad. They were a bit off their game for OSU, but I thought the Minnesota game was excellent.) Obviously, this happened in 2003. In 2002, they were playing tired against a rested team. This year, I think the bounces just didn't go our way, in the pairwise or at the rink.
What compensates for this small margin for error is an explosive offense. This year's offense, though better than last year's and 2002's, was not as explosive as in 2003. They had moments, but the blowouts came against the expected teams. In 2003, we shellacked every team on the schedule at least once except for Clarkson, Colgate, and Princeton. Basically, an offense that can turn it on when it wants to, not just against the bad teams. Now, ironically, each team showed the opposite behavior in the playoffs--2003 unable to turn on the breakaway offense vs. UNH, 2005 able to turn it on vs. OSU--but that doesn't disprove my hypothesis. What we need, as so many Minnesota fans have pointed out to us, are snipers.
My whole point above in this topic is that, through dogged work and determination, Schafer has put us in a position where we can finally attract snipers, players with natural scoring sense. These guys next year--Kindret, Barlow, Greening--were sought out by a bunch of teams for offense not just for defense and size. He also can probably pick and choose a bit to find snipers that will fit in SODAS. It's the flip side of attracting recruits like Pokulok and Krantz. Schafer goes in and says, "We have guys to play defense. We have the best defense in the nation. I have top defensemen lined up for years. We have guys to pass the puck, some of the best setup men. We have grinders and checkers. Everything is in place, but we're missing one thing. We're missing snipers with good enough hockey sense to play our defensive scheme. We're missing you."
Each and every one of us here knows that Moulson is our only sniper. I mean, come on. Who else is there? We had Chartrand, who only turned it on his senior year, and then we had Vesce, who only showed it his junior year. Sometimes that happens. Look back through the scoring stats sometime: you'll find very few significant point scorers with goals higher than assists. Moulson's been doing that since his freshman year, and we all know that he's not stingy with passing the puck around. What was the difference between 2003 and 2005? Snipers. In 2003 we had two, and sometimes three, at least against Harvard. (Paolini!) In 2005, we have one. In 2006, I hope we have two, or maybe three or four.
Who could develop into a sniper next year? Barlow comes in with the reputation. What happened to Hynes this year? Will he get it back? Do he and Moulson need to be split up on the power play? What about the Abbotts? What about McCutcheon? Who is going to go home this summer and work like Charlie Cook did?
This year was about sustaining the defensive gains of last year while breaking in two outstanding freshmen. We're set. Next year is all about offense.
PS Can someone send an Iggy replacement too? How nice it was to have a shorthanded threat.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/29/2005 11:17PM by Scersk '97.
Re: Offense is Defense
Posted by: Jordan 04 (---.nyc.rr.com)
Date: March 29, 2005 11:17PM
[Q]Scersk '97 Wrote:
This year was about sustaining the defensive gains of last year. We're set. Next year is all about offense.[/q]
Are we? Losing Cook and Downs from that sustained momentum is nothing to sneeze at.
[q]PS Can someone send an Iggy replacement too? How nice it was to have a shorthanded threat.[/q]
Here's hoping it can be developed in one of the current guys, as it seems to have been with Iggy.
Edited 1 times. Last edit at 03/29/05 11:14PM by Scersk '97.[/q]
This year was about sustaining the defensive gains of last year. We're set. Next year is all about offense.[/q]
Are we? Losing Cook and Downs from that sustained momentum is nothing to sneeze at.
[q]PS Can someone send an Iggy replacement too? How nice it was to have a shorthanded threat.[/q]
Here's hoping it can be developed in one of the current guys, as it seems to have been with Iggy.
Edited 1 times. Last edit at 03/29/05 11:14PM by Scersk '97.[/q]
Re: Offense is Defense
Posted by: pfibiger (---.hsd1.ca.comcast.net)
Date: March 29, 2005 11:25PM
[Q]Scersk '97 Wrote:
Who could develop into a sniper next year? Barlow comes in with the reputation. What happened to Hynes this year? Will he get it back? Do he and Moulson need to be split up on the power play? What about the Abbotts? What about McCutcheon? Who is going to go home this summer and work like Charlie Cook did?
[/q]
I think that the potential big scorers coming next year are Connors, Barlow and to a lesser degree Kindret. Granted it was at the Nichols School and the Buffalo midget team, but Matt Connors scored a _ton_ of goals. He was injured a bunch during the year with the Apple Core, but from the boxes scored he had some pretty dominant games. All three guys committed so far for 2006-07 are serious goal scorers.
It seems like Cam Abbott was hampered by injury for a bunch of the season, I could see him putting up much better numbers next year. Also, Bitz didn't see any increase in his goal production from last year to this, maybe we'll see him come roaring out of the gate next season.
[Q]Scersk '97 Wrote:
PS Can someone send an Iggy replacement too? How nice it was to have a shorthanded threat.
[/Q]
I feel like Carefoot can take over this role. He's shown himself to be a tenacious forechecker on the PK, has scored shorthanded. If he were to work on his speed a little bit, I could definitely see him being a serious shorthanded threat.
Who could develop into a sniper next year? Barlow comes in with the reputation. What happened to Hynes this year? Will he get it back? Do he and Moulson need to be split up on the power play? What about the Abbotts? What about McCutcheon? Who is going to go home this summer and work like Charlie Cook did?
[/q]
I think that the potential big scorers coming next year are Connors, Barlow and to a lesser degree Kindret. Granted it was at the Nichols School and the Buffalo midget team, but Matt Connors scored a _ton_ of goals. He was injured a bunch during the year with the Apple Core, but from the boxes scored he had some pretty dominant games. All three guys committed so far for 2006-07 are serious goal scorers.
It seems like Cam Abbott was hampered by injury for a bunch of the season, I could see him putting up much better numbers next year. Also, Bitz didn't see any increase in his goal production from last year to this, maybe we'll see him come roaring out of the gate next season.
[Q]Scersk '97 Wrote:
PS Can someone send an Iggy replacement too? How nice it was to have a shorthanded threat.
[/Q]
I feel like Carefoot can take over this role. He's shown himself to be a tenacious forechecker on the PK, has scored shorthanded. If he were to work on his speed a little bit, I could definitely see him being a serious shorthanded threat.
Very Untrue on this
Posted by: nyiballs (---.jan.bellsouth.net)
Date: March 29, 2005 11:33PM
[Q]adamw Wrote:
nyiballs Wrote:
Well.. I guess it's just a difference in philosophy then. As a player, you were always judged by your results. But ultimately, the goal is to win it all. Granted and conceded that Mike Schafer has put this team in a position to have more chances to do that, and maybe it's just frustration on my part, but notwithstanding the chances we've had, the results have been the same. As far as I'm concerned, we could lose 2-1 in OT or 5-0. In the end it's still a loss.
[/Q]
How much better than Boston College do you really even think Cornell was in 2003? The margin of error there was monumentally slim. I feel in my heart that Cornell was *as good* as anyone in the country that year - but even then, you're dealing with teams with much more pure talent. You have to play at your best to win each game - as jtw said.[/Q]
I'll flat out tell you... We were head and shoulders above that BC team.
[Q]
I just think you don't really understand how much it took just to get to the final 8, or the final 4. A slip could have happened anywhere along the way. It didn't. Now you're asking to go 2 or 3 more games without a slip. Very, very difficult.
[/q]
First of all, believe me when I say I absolutely understand how difficult that is. I've been playing games like that my whole life.
Again... we need to pay attention to the main points here. This team getting this far was exceptional. It was astonishing really. That doesn't mean you have to be completely satisfied. Defying people's expectations and then going back and saying "we weren't supposed to get this far" is just an excuse. Just because people didn't think this year's team was that good, doesn't make it true.
The only point I was trying to make, and it's not even a point really, it's a question. Is Schafer snakebitten when it comes to sealing the deal? That's all. Don't over-read into this thing.
Re: Offense is Defense
Posted by: nyiballs (---.jan.bellsouth.net)
Date: March 29, 2005 11:35PM
[Q]pfibiger Wrote:
but Matt Connors scored a _ton_ of goals. He was injured a bunch during the year with the Apple Core, but from the boxes scored he had some pretty dominant games. All three guys committed so far for 2006-07 are serious goal scorers.
[/q]
God, I feel like such a naysayer here, but I played in the AppleCore system, don't read too much into the big goal totals... cause everyone has em in that league.
but Matt Connors scored a _ton_ of goals. He was injured a bunch during the year with the Apple Core, but from the boxes scored he had some pretty dominant games. All three guys committed so far for 2006-07 are serious goal scorers.
[/q]
God, I feel like such a naysayer here, but I played in the AppleCore system, don't read too much into the big goal totals... cause everyone has em in that league.
Re: Offense is Defense
Posted by: ugarte (---.ny325.east.verizon.net)
Date: March 29, 2005 11:35PM
[Q]Scersk '97 Wrote:
nyiballs Wrote:
In terms of Schafer's system, I have this to say. It is GREAT!!... for long term success. However... it's suspect at best when it comes to the one and done tournament system.
[/Q]
Here I think you're onto something. The typically small margin for error called for in Schafer's "Our Defense is Awesome" System (SODAS) can backfire. The team has a bad game, lets in three or more goals, can't compensate with a more unusual display of offense and we tie or lose. [/q]I have to disagree. There really is no such thing as a "one-game strategy." You design a system to give you the best chance of winning games. The loss to Minnesota doesn't prove any more or less than the loss to BC or Harvard; the win over OSU doesn't prove any more or less than the wins over Maine or Harvard. There were 16 teams in the tournament; 15 of them are going home with a loss.
As for whether Schafer has enough to take us over the top: Herb Brooks is dead and Scotty Bowman is retired. There is nobody else that I would even consider to replace Schafer.
___________________________
quality tweets | bluesky (twitter 2) | ALAB Series podcast | Other podcasts and writing
Re: Offense is Defense
Posted by: nyiballs (---.jan.bellsouth.net)
Date: March 29, 2005 11:38PM
[Q]ugarte Wrote:
As for whether Schafer has enough to take us over the top: Herb Brooks is dead and Scotty Bowman is retired. There is nobody else that I would even consider to replace Schafer.[/q]
Is the answer Jesus?
if you don't get that, you don't know hockey...
As for whether Schafer has enough to take us over the top: Herb Brooks is dead and Scotty Bowman is retired. There is nobody else that I would even consider to replace Schafer.[/q]
Is the answer Jesus?
if you don't get that, you don't know hockey...
Re: Very Untrue on this
Posted by: ugarte (---.ny325.east.verizon.net)
Date: March 29, 2005 11:38PM
[Q]nyiballs Wrote:
The only point I was trying to make, and it's not even a point really, it's a question. Is Schafer snakebitten when it comes to sealing the deal? That's all. Don't over-read into this thing.[/q]Everyone is snakebit until they win. Don't over-read two friggin' games in three years.
The only point I was trying to make, and it's not even a point really, it's a question. Is Schafer snakebitten when it comes to sealing the deal? That's all. Don't over-read into this thing.[/q]Everyone is snakebit until they win. Don't over-read two friggin' games in three years.
___________________________
quality tweets | bluesky (twitter 2) | ALAB Series podcast | Other podcasts and writing
quality tweets | bluesky (twitter 2) | ALAB Series podcast | Other podcasts and writing
Re: Offense is Defense
Posted by: ugarte (---.ny325.east.verizon.net)
Date: March 29, 2005 11:39PM
[Q]nyiballs Wrote:
ugarte Wrote:
As for whether Schafer has enough to take us over the top: Herb Brooks is dead and Scotty Bowman is retired. There is nobody else that I would even consider to replace Schafer.[/Q]
Is the answer Jesus?
if you don't get that, you don't know hockey...[/q]Don't think that I didn't consider putting Jesus in the mix. But he was more of a desert guy. The Olympic sheet would put him at a huge disadvantage.
___________________________
quality tweets | bluesky (twitter 2) | ALAB Series podcast | Other podcasts and writing
Re: Offense is Defense
Posted by: pfibiger (---.hsd1.ca.comcast.net)
Date: March 29, 2005 11:46PM
[Q]nyiballs Wrote:
God, I feel like such a naysayer here, but I played in the AppleCore system, don't read too much into the big goal totals... cause everyone has em in that league.
[/q]
His numbers last year w/ the AppleCore actually weren't that good I was talking about the year before...but in an attempt to somewhat back up what I said, here's the quote from ushr.com from when Connors committed:
------
6’1â€, 195 lb. Matt Connors, a fast, high-scoring wing with Nichols School and the Buffalo Saints midget major team, has committed to Cornell for the fall of ’05.
Connors, a right shot from Buffalo Grove, NY, is a big get for Cornell. He’s an exciting player who creates numerous chances with his speed, often breaking free for a breakaway. His size and ability to finish round out the picture. Last year, Connors played a combined 70 games for Nichols and the Saints, and finished with a 78-51-129 line. The other schools in Connors’ final five were Maine, Michigan State, Yale, and Dartmouth.
God, I feel like such a naysayer here, but I played in the AppleCore system, don't read too much into the big goal totals... cause everyone has em in that league.
[/q]
His numbers last year w/ the AppleCore actually weren't that good
I was talking about the year before...but in an attempt to somewhat back up what I said, here's the quote from ushr.com from when Connors committed:
------
6’1â€, 195 lb. Matt Connors, a fast, high-scoring wing with Nichols School and the Buffalo Saints midget major team, has committed to Cornell for the fall of ’05.
Connors, a right shot from Buffalo Grove, NY, is a big get for Cornell. He’s an exciting player who creates numerous chances with his speed, often breaking free for a breakaway. His size and ability to finish round out the picture. Last year, Connors played a combined 70 games for Nichols and the Saints, and finished with a 78-51-129 line. The other schools in Connors’ final five were Maine, Michigan State, Yale, and Dartmouth.
Re: Whither Mike Schafer?
Posted by: RatushnyFan (---.royalusa.com)
Date: March 29, 2005 11:55PM
[Q]billhoward Wrote:
(The other thing a university *could* do is have a hotshot Wall Street alum (even BU has some of them, even BC does even if Larry Summers says it's unusual to see Catholics on Wall Street) as his non-financial conribution to the U personally take care of Jackie's or Jerry's (or Mike's?) investments and make sure he gets in at the head of the line for safe IPOs (oxymoron?) or at least into seeming sure-fire funds. Maybe the coach's big worry is not living on $100K now at 40 but having something go wrong coaching-wise and being out of hockey coaching and just about broke at 50 when his kids are heading off to college.)[/q]
This is crazy Bill! Read the paper ........ you can't do this sort of thing anymore. Remember Frank Quattrone his "Friends of Frank" accounts? All investment banking firms have internal policies preventing this sort of thing because it's not ethical, not to mention that IPO's are no safe haven anymore.
Glad to help with your i-banking questions......
(The other thing a university *could* do is have a hotshot Wall Street alum (even BU has some of them, even BC does even if Larry Summers says it's unusual to see Catholics on Wall Street) as his non-financial conribution to the U personally take care of Jackie's or Jerry's (or Mike's?) investments and make sure he gets in at the head of the line for safe IPOs (oxymoron?) or at least into seeming sure-fire funds. Maybe the coach's big worry is not living on $100K now at 40 but having something go wrong coaching-wise and being out of hockey coaching and just about broke at 50 when his kids are heading off to college.)[/q]
This is crazy Bill! Read the paper ........ you can't do this sort of thing anymore. Remember Frank Quattrone his "Friends of Frank" accounts? All investment banking firms have internal policies preventing this sort of thing because it's not ethical, not to mention that IPO's are no safe haven anymore.
Glad to help with your i-banking questions......
Re: Very Untrue on this
Posted by: nyiballs (---.jan.bellsouth.net)
Date: March 29, 2005 11:59PM
[Q]ugarte Wrote:
nyiballs Wrote:
The only point I was trying to make, and it's not even a point really, it's a question. Is Schafer snakebitten when it comes to sealing the deal? That's all. Don't over-read into this thing.[/Q]
Everyone is snakebit until they win. Don't over-read two friggin' games in three years.[/q]
Fair enough... hence me saying that I wasn't convinced of this... just curious.
Re: Offense is Defense
Posted by: nyiballs (---.jan.bellsouth.net)
Date: March 30, 2005 12:01AM
[Q]ugarte Wrote:
nyiballs Wrote:
ugarte Wrote:
As for whether Schafer has enough to take us over the top: Herb Brooks is dead and Scotty Bowman is retired. There is nobody else that I would even consider to replace Schafer.[/Q]
Is the answer Jesus?
if you don't get that, you don't know hockey...[/Q]
Don't think that I didn't consider putting Jesus in the mix. But he was more of a desert guy. The Olympic sheet would put him at a huge disadvantage.[/q]
It's a slapshot reference. After "dave's a killer"..."dave's a mess"
Re: Offense is Defense
Posted by: nyiballs (---.jan.bellsouth.net)
Date: March 30, 2005 12:04AM
[Q]pfibiger Wrote:
------
6’1â€, 195 lb. Matt Connors, a fast, high-scoring wing with Nichols School and the Buffalo Saints midget major team, has committed to Cornell for the fall of ’05.
Connors, a right shot from Buffalo Grove, NY, is a big get for Cornell. He’s an exciting player who creates numerous chances with his speed, often breaking free for a breakaway. His size and ability to finish round out the picture. Last year, Connors played a combined 70 games for Nichols and the Saints, and finished with a 78-51-129 line. The other schools in Connors’ final five were Maine, Michigan State, Yale, and Dartmouth.[/q]
Yeah... but how often do you see...
Smith is a real bust for Cornell. He just sucks. Can't skate, can't pass, can't shoot, has terrible vision and bad breath. He is exceptionally bad at every point in the game where he has to make a decision. Even though he scored 80 points in 45 games with his junior D team in Honolulu, he was still 16th in overall team scoring. His sister isn't good looking either. The other schools Smith was looking at were UPenn, Stanford, MIT, and Dutchess County Community College.
------
6’1â€, 195 lb. Matt Connors, a fast, high-scoring wing with Nichols School and the Buffalo Saints midget major team, has committed to Cornell for the fall of ’05.
Connors, a right shot from Buffalo Grove, NY, is a big get for Cornell. He’s an exciting player who creates numerous chances with his speed, often breaking free for a breakaway. His size and ability to finish round out the picture. Last year, Connors played a combined 70 games for Nichols and the Saints, and finished with a 78-51-129 line. The other schools in Connors’ final five were Maine, Michigan State, Yale, and Dartmouth.[/q]
Yeah... but how often do you see...
Smith is a real bust for Cornell. He just sucks. Can't skate, can't pass, can't shoot, has terrible vision and bad breath. He is exceptionally bad at every point in the game where he has to make a decision. Even though he scored 80 points in 45 games with his junior D team in Honolulu, he was still 16th in overall team scoring. His sister isn't good looking either. The other schools Smith was looking at were UPenn, Stanford, MIT, and Dutchess County Community College.
Re: Offense is Defense
Posted by: Scersk '97 (---.dsl.emhril.ameritech.net)
Date: March 30, 2005 12:07AM
[Q]Jordan 04 Wrote:
Are we? Losing Cook and Downs from that sustained momentum is nothing to sneeze at.
[/Q]
There's been a continuing downward trend in our GAA since '96 with small upward blips in '98 and '04. Did anyone really think the defense could get better than in 2003? I guess I shouldn't have doubted. We have six defensemen returning that have logged a significant number of minutes. We also have five defensemen returning who'll be at least that magical age--21--that seems to be the turning point for many players. I'm really not worried.
(Warning: understatement approaching.) Schafer knows defense.
[Q]pfibiger Wrote:
It seems like Cam Abbott was hampered by injury for a bunch of the season, I could see him putting up much better numbers next year. Also, Bitz didn't see any increase in his goal production from last year to this, maybe we'll see him come roaring out of the gate next season.
[/Q]
Could be anybody. Bitz was also injured early on this year, as was Carefoot. Lots of potential on this team.
I didn't see a sniper in last year's recruits. Scott turned out to be a great setup guy but hasn't shown the scoring he showed in the USHL. Sawada is Hynes, Jr. (Or Hynes III if Bitz is Hynes, Jr.) Connors will likely be Hynes IV. (The Four Shane Hyneses! Sounds like a band.) Our RWs have not traditionally been looked to for scoring. It'd be nice for that to change. Both McCutcheon and Carefoot put up some rather gaudy numbers in juniors and looked like potential snipers coming in. Both were forced into checking roles and haven't seen much time on the powerplay. We'll see how they develop next year. Kennedy might turn out to be a Knoepfli type sniper--the type that gets hot late in the season. (Kennedy had 5 goals in 4 games with his team in the playoffs.)
Centers, snipers, and Downses: oh my!
Are we? Losing Cook and Downs from that sustained momentum is nothing to sneeze at.
[/Q]
There's been a continuing downward trend in our GAA since '96 with small upward blips in '98 and '04. Did anyone really think the defense could get better than in 2003? I guess I shouldn't have doubted. We have six defensemen returning that have logged a significant number of minutes. We also have five defensemen returning who'll be at least that magical age--21--that seems to be the turning point for many players. I'm really not worried.
(Warning: understatement approaching.) Schafer knows defense.
[Q]pfibiger Wrote:
It seems like Cam Abbott was hampered by injury for a bunch of the season, I could see him putting up much better numbers next year. Also, Bitz didn't see any increase in his goal production from last year to this, maybe we'll see him come roaring out of the gate next season.
[/Q]
Could be anybody. Bitz was also injured early on this year, as was Carefoot. Lots of potential on this team.
I didn't see a sniper in last year's recruits. Scott turned out to be a great setup guy but hasn't shown the scoring he showed in the USHL. Sawada is Hynes, Jr. (Or Hynes III if Bitz is Hynes, Jr.) Connors will likely be Hynes IV. (The Four Shane Hyneses! Sounds like a band.) Our RWs have not traditionally been looked to for scoring. It'd be nice for that to change. Both McCutcheon and Carefoot put up some rather gaudy numbers in juniors and looked like potential snipers coming in. Both were forced into checking roles and haven't seen much time on the powerplay. We'll see how they develop next year. Kennedy might turn out to be a Knoepfli type sniper--the type that gets hot late in the season. (Kennedy had 5 goals in 4 games with his team in the playoffs.)
Centers, snipers, and Downses: oh my!
Re: Whither Mike Schafer?
Posted by: DeltaOne81 (---.bos.east.verizon.net)
Date: March 30, 2005 12:08AM
To say one thing on the original topic, is Schafer is snake bitten, then Harvard is doomed for all eternity
Re: Whither Mike Schafer?
Posted by: CUlater 89 (---.nyc.rr.com)
Date: March 30, 2005 12:10AM
[Q]CU at Stanford Wrote:
nyiballs...
You are so lucky...you don't sound like you were a Cornell fan during the McCutcheon era. Do you know how it felt to have gone to the Boston Garden (uh, I mean, Bah-stan Gah-den) four times and never came home with the ECAC championship? How about a long losing streak at home at Lynah?
Cornell lost to Harvard (uh, OK, Hah-vahd) on January 8, by a 0-1 score. Cornell lost to Minnesota on Sunday, by a 1-2 score in overtime. In between, Cornell went 18-0-1 and won two regular-season and one post-season championships. For an Ivy League school that does not offer athletic scholarships, Cornell did GREAT.
Thank you, Schafer, is all I want to say.[/q]
Actually, I think the 0-for-4 record in at the Garden is similar to the concept expressed here. At the time that was going on, most fans were thrilled that after '86-'87 the program had bounced back and was clearly building to greater things. By the time we lost the third try (with the great '90-'91 squad), there was legitimate concern about why we couldn't get over that hump. Once the injuries and disputes with the admissions offices hindered recruiting, things began to spiral downward. I think it's early to decide for sure that Schafer can't get the team over the hump but if we hit an early NCAA stumbling block next season, the parallels will clearly be there. Of course, no one expects the program to spiral downwards and in any case, this isn't Division I football -- the adminsitration won't be perturbed that we're not winning national titles as long as we're competitive year-in and year-out.
Regarding the comments about every opponent being tough at the NCAA stage of the season, that's absolutely correct (and perhaps the Schafer system makes it more difficult to win a high percentage of those games). It is also parallel to the late 80s, early 90s, when it seemed to me that the teams that contended with us for the tourney title were more talented (college hockey talent, not NHL talent) than the current league competition.
Finally, regarding the Ivy League ball-and-chain that Schafer has "overcome", let's not forget Harvard's success under Cleary. They were perennial national contenders and generally the class of the league for a number of years, despite having to compete with BU, BC and Maine for New England recruits with pro talent and despite the general belief by fans and recruits that the western teams played a better brand of hockey.
nyiballs...
You are so lucky...you don't sound like you were a Cornell fan during the McCutcheon era. Do you know how it felt to have gone to the Boston Garden (uh, I mean, Bah-stan Gah-den) four times and never came home with the ECAC championship? How about a long losing streak at home at Lynah?
Cornell lost to Harvard (uh, OK, Hah-vahd) on January 8, by a 0-1 score. Cornell lost to Minnesota on Sunday, by a 1-2 score in overtime. In between, Cornell went 18-0-1 and won two regular-season and one post-season championships. For an Ivy League school that does not offer athletic scholarships, Cornell did GREAT.
Thank you, Schafer, is all I want to say.[/q]
Actually, I think the 0-for-4 record in at the Garden is similar to the concept expressed here. At the time that was going on, most fans were thrilled that after '86-'87 the program had bounced back and was clearly building to greater things. By the time we lost the third try (with the great '90-'91 squad), there was legitimate concern about why we couldn't get over that hump. Once the injuries and disputes with the admissions offices hindered recruiting, things began to spiral downward. I think it's early to decide for sure that Schafer can't get the team over the hump but if we hit an early NCAA stumbling block next season, the parallels will clearly be there. Of course, no one expects the program to spiral downwards and in any case, this isn't Division I football -- the adminsitration won't be perturbed that we're not winning national titles as long as we're competitive year-in and year-out.
Regarding the comments about every opponent being tough at the NCAA stage of the season, that's absolutely correct (and perhaps the Schafer system makes it more difficult to win a high percentage of those games). It is also parallel to the late 80s, early 90s, when it seemed to me that the teams that contended with us for the tourney title were more talented (college hockey talent, not NHL talent) than the current league competition.
Finally, regarding the Ivy League ball-and-chain that Schafer has "overcome", let's not forget Harvard's success under Cleary. They were perennial national contenders and generally the class of the league for a number of years, despite having to compete with BU, BC and Maine for New England recruits with pro talent and despite the general belief by fans and recruits that the western teams played a better brand of hockey.
Re: Offense is Defense
Posted by: Kyle Rose (---.krose.org)
Date: March 30, 2005 12:14AM
[Q]
Don't think that I didn't consider putting Jesus in the mix. But he was more of a desert guy. The Olympic sheet would put him at a huge disadvantage.[/q]
He may be referring to the old gag, "Jesus Saves, passes off to Moses, who shoots and scores!"
Cheers,
Kyle
Don't think that I didn't consider putting Jesus in the mix. But he was more of a desert guy. The Olympic sheet would put him at a huge disadvantage.[/q]
He may be referring to the old gag, "Jesus Saves, passes off to Moses, who shoots and scores!"
Cheers,
Kyle
Re: Offense is Defense
Posted by: RatushnyFan (---.royalusa.com)
Date: March 30, 2005 12:15AM
[Q]Scersk '97 Wrote:
nyiballs Wrote:
In terms of Schafer's system, I have this to say. It is GREAT!!... for long term success. However... it's suspect at best when it comes to the one and done tournament system.
[/Q]
Here I think you're onto something. The typically small margin for error called for in Schafer's "Our Defense is Awesome" System (SODAS) can backfire. The team has a bad game, lets in three or more goals, can't compensate with a more unusual display of offense and we tie or lose.
What compensates for this small margin for error is an explosive offense. ...................... What we need, as so many Minnesota fans have pointed out to us, are snipers.
[/q]
I agree with much of this. I think that team speed, in addition to "snipers", is part of what it will take to win a national championship.
MN took it to us for 50 minutes. We scored a shortie when they made a mistake. After wearing them down, we started to get some chances in the last 10 minutes.
Teams like MN, MI, CC .......... they have incredible team speed. Cornell played almost a technically flawless game, particularly on the penalty kill. They did not allow a much faster team to get many point blank shots. Mckee saw most of the shots well and controlled rebounds exceptionally well.
But we lose this game probably 8 times out of 10. Only reason we'd ever win is because the players are so well coached and disciplined and other teams can make mistakes. The guy who picked O'Byrne's pocket was tiny, but pretty quick. Speed creates opportunities. I'm happy that we have 9 or 10 200+ pounders and that we wear people down but I'd like to see if Schafer can find some players who fit his system who have more speed.
The other thing I noted was that MN's breakout passes were a lot quicker and crisper. I don't think that this hurt us in the game but we did struggle on a couple of attempts to clear the zone. Our positioning and overall cautious approach covered any mistakes.
I'm a huge Schafer fan so please take this in the spirit that it is meant!! I want to win the NCAA's in my lifetime and we're making progress (I suffered through the McCutcheon years but was lucky to be at Michigan as a grad student when they won - there's NOTHING like it!!).
Re: Offense is Defense
Posted by: ben03 (---.rochester.res.rr.com)
Date: March 30, 2005 12:28AM
[Q]RatushnyFan Wrote:
But we lose this game probably 8 times out of 10.[/q]
[playing devils advocate] these odds would be flipped in our favor on a small sheet. [/playing devils advocate]
But we lose this game probably 8 times out of 10.[/q]
[playing devils advocate] these odds would be flipped in our favor on a small sheet. [/playing devils advocate]
___________________________
Let's GO Red!!!
Let's GO Red!!!
Re: Whither Mike Schafer?
Posted by: ben03 (---.rochester.res.rr.com)
Date: March 30, 2005 12:29AM
[Q]DeltaOne81 Wrote:
To say one thing on the original topic, is Schafer is snake bitten, then Harvard is doomed for all eternity [/q]
works for me
To say one thing on the original topic, is Schafer is snake bitten, then Harvard is doomed for all eternity [/q]
works for me
___________________________
Let's GO Red!!!
Let's GO Red!!!
Re: Offense is Defense
Posted by: Scersk '97 (---.dsl.emhril.ameritech.net)
Date: March 30, 2005 12:33AM
[Q]ugarte Wrote:
I have to disagree. There really is no such thing as a "one-game strategy." You design a system to give you the best chance of winning games. The loss to Minnesota doesn't prove any more or less than the loss to BC or Harvard; the win over OSU doesn't prove any more or less than the wins over Maine or Harvard. There were 16 teams in the tournament; 15 of them are going home with a loss.
[/q]
Nope, you have to go back and read what I wrote, however tiresome that may be. Our scoring margin this year was very similar to that of 2003, but our high scoring games this year were against the usual suspects, with struggling goalies and porous defenses. These tables from TBRW are instructive, showing our results vs. tournament seeds during the regular season:
[www.tbrw.info]
The 2003 team clobbered teams up and down the tables; this year's team beat up consistently on the little guys. Both techniques win the same amount of games, roughly, but the former can handle potential adversity much better than the latter. Meld consistency with explosiveness and--pow!--national championship. The point: though it appears that both the 2003 and 2005 teams could hack out the same margin for error, if you look more closely it becomes clear that the 2003 team, because of a superior offense, could dig itself out of more holes.
Since I harp on this kind of comparison, '03 was similar to '96 while '05 has been similar to '97. I made a comment in some other thread about reevaluating my feeling that the '96 team was "magical." I want to rescind that, or maybe modify that to say "explosive." That '96 team could beat any team, any night; the '97 team was more likely to turn in an excellent performance. (In fact, you could've probably said the same thing about the '96 pep band vs. the '97 pep band, but I digess.) I still feel as if, had '96 gotten past LSSU, we were going to the final four; however much I wanted to feel the same for '97, most of us kind of knew the season was over vs. North Dakota.
The tantalizing notion left unexplored at the end of this year was a team that was finding its "explosiveness" very late on. Unfortunately, we'll never know.
I have to disagree. There really is no such thing as a "one-game strategy." You design a system to give you the best chance of winning games. The loss to Minnesota doesn't prove any more or less than the loss to BC or Harvard; the win over OSU doesn't prove any more or less than the wins over Maine or Harvard. There were 16 teams in the tournament; 15 of them are going home with a loss.
[/q]
Nope, you have to go back and read what I wrote, however tiresome that may be. Our scoring margin this year was very similar to that of 2003, but our high scoring games this year were against the usual suspects, with struggling goalies and porous defenses. These tables from TBRW are instructive, showing our results vs. tournament seeds during the regular season:
[www.tbrw.info]
The 2003 team clobbered teams up and down the tables; this year's team beat up consistently on the little guys. Both techniques win the same amount of games, roughly, but the former can handle potential adversity much better than the latter. Meld consistency with explosiveness and--pow!--national championship. The point: though it appears that both the 2003 and 2005 teams could hack out the same margin for error, if you look more closely it becomes clear that the 2003 team, because of a superior offense, could dig itself out of more holes.
Since I harp on this kind of comparison, '03 was similar to '96 while '05 has been similar to '97. I made a comment in some other thread about reevaluating my feeling that the '96 team was "magical." I want to rescind that, or maybe modify that to say "explosive." That '96 team could beat any team, any night; the '97 team was more likely to turn in an excellent performance. (In fact, you could've probably said the same thing about the '96 pep band vs. the '97 pep band, but I digess.) I still feel as if, had '96 gotten past LSSU, we were going to the final four; however much I wanted to feel the same for '97, most of us kind of knew the season was over vs. North Dakota.
The tantalizing notion left unexplored at the end of this year was a team that was finding its "explosiveness" very late on. Unfortunately, we'll never know.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/30/2005 01:48AM by Scersk '97.
agree!
Posted by: nyiballs (---.jan.bellsouth.net)
Date: March 30, 2005 01:31AM
[Q]ben03 Wrote:
RatushnyFan Wrote:
But we lose this game probably 8 times out of 10.[/Q]
these odds would be flipped in our favor on a small sheet.[/q]
I agree!!!!!
Re: Whither Mike Schafer?
Posted by: adamw (---.benslm01.pa.comcast.net)
Date: March 30, 2005 02:16AM
[Q]CUlater 89 Wrote:
Finally, regarding the Ivy League ball-and-chain that Schafer has "overcome", let's not forget Harvard's success under Cleary. They were perennial national contenders and generally the class of the league for a number of years, despite having to compete with BU, BC and Maine for New England recruits with pro talent and despite the general belief by fans and recruits that the western teams played a better brand of hockey.[/q]
That was almost two decades ago. Things have changed. SLU, Colgate, RPI and Clarkson were all also national contenders in that era. This just cannot happen anymore on a widespread basis for ECAC teams. The landscape is totally different.
Cornell's ability to land snipers are not easy. Can't just snap fingers. These blue chippers want to go to the big schools that they see on TV, which have beautiful buildings and unbelievable amenities. Cornell has a lot going for it that other ECAC teams don't - including tradition, Lynah, and the ability to get some kids in that other Ivies can't. ... But it's still darned near impossible to compete for true stud prospects with BU/BC/Mich/Minny/Wisc etc... This situation is only getting exacerbated more and more every year.
So, you maximize what you have, which Schafer does as well as any coach in the country. It's too easy to say "Cornell is a sniper or two from winning a national title" -- It's true - but it doesn't mean they're not trying. Maybe Cornell's recent success will build on itself to the point where true blue chippers might give Cornell a shot.
Romano will hopefully fill the bill. USHR is reporting that Greening is deferring a year to play in the BCHL. So those guys are 2 years away.
Finally, regarding the Ivy League ball-and-chain that Schafer has "overcome", let's not forget Harvard's success under Cleary. They were perennial national contenders and generally the class of the league for a number of years, despite having to compete with BU, BC and Maine for New England recruits with pro talent and despite the general belief by fans and recruits that the western teams played a better brand of hockey.[/q]
That was almost two decades ago. Things have changed. SLU, Colgate, RPI and Clarkson were all also national contenders in that era. This just cannot happen anymore on a widespread basis for ECAC teams. The landscape is totally different.
Cornell's ability to land snipers are not easy. Can't just snap fingers. These blue chippers want to go to the big schools that they see on TV, which have beautiful buildings and unbelievable amenities. Cornell has a lot going for it that other ECAC teams don't - including tradition, Lynah, and the ability to get some kids in that other Ivies can't. ... But it's still darned near impossible to compete for true stud prospects with BU/BC/Mich/Minny/Wisc etc... This situation is only getting exacerbated more and more every year.
So, you maximize what you have, which Schafer does as well as any coach in the country. It's too easy to say "Cornell is a sniper or two from winning a national title" -- It's true - but it doesn't mean they're not trying. Maybe Cornell's recent success will build on itself to the point where true blue chippers might give Cornell a shot.
Romano will hopefully fill the bill. USHR is reporting that Greening is deferring a year to play in the BCHL. So those guys are 2 years away.
Re: Whither Mike Schafer?
Posted by: calgARI '07 (205.232.75.---)
Date: March 30, 2005 02:46AM
[Q]adamw Wrote:
CUlater 89 Wrote:
Finally, regarding the Ivy League ball-and-chain that Schafer has "overcome", let's not forget Harvard's success under Cleary. They were perennial national contenders and generally the class of the league for a number of years, despite having to compete with BU, BC and Maine for New England recruits with pro talent and despite the general belief by fans and recruits that the western teams played a better brand of hockey.[/Q]
That was almost two decades ago. Things have changed. SLU, Colgate, RPI and Clarkson were all also national contenders in that era. This just cannot happen anymore on a widespread basis for ECAC teams. The landscape is totally different.
Cornell's ability to land snipers are not easy. Can't just snap fingers. These blue chippers want to go to the big schools that they see on TV, which have beautiful buildings and unbelievable amenities. Cornell has a lot going for it that other ECAC teams don't - including tradition, Lynah, and the ability to get some kids in that other Ivies can't. ... But it's still darned near impossible to compete for true stud prospects with BU/BC/Mich/Minny/Wisc etc... This situation is only getting exacerbated more and more every year.
So, you maximize what you have, which Schafer does as well as any coach in the country. It's too easy to say "Cornell is a sniper or two from winning a national title" -- It's true - but it doesn't mean they're not trying. Maybe Cornell's recent success will build on itself to the point where true blue chippers might give Cornell a shot.
Romano will hopefully fill the bill. USHR is reporting that Greening is deferring a year to play in the BCHL. So those guys are 2 years away.
[/q]
I believe we are starting to see a shift in recruiting where they are starting to target more skilled players. This will not necessarily come at the expense of the size we have come to know and love in the last few years. Scott, Barlow, Romano, and Milo are all guys that are undersized but have tremendous offensive talent. Still, you have Sawada, Kindret, Connors, Mugford, and Greening who will all sustain the physical edge that has really vaulted Cornell into the nation's elite. I think by adding the additional skill up front, the team is attempting/preparing to take the next step from secondary contender to primary, theoretically joining the teams who perennially contend for the National Championship.
Re: Offense is Defense
Posted by: Trotsky (---.cust-rtr.swbell.net)
Date: March 30, 2005 08:16AM
[Q]ugarte Wrote:
Don't think that I didn't consider putting Jesus in the mix. But he was more of a desert guy. The Olympic sheet would put him at a huge disadvantage.[/q]
Peter, on the other hand, was a legitimate netminder.
(rim shot)
Don't think that I didn't consider putting Jesus in the mix. But he was more of a desert guy. The Olympic sheet would put him at a huge disadvantage.[/q]
Peter, on the other hand, was a legitimate netminder.
(rim shot)
Re: Offense is Defense
Posted by: jtwcornell91 (---.no.no.cox.net)
Date: March 30, 2005 08:20AM
[Q]ugarte Wrote:
As for whether Schafer has enough to take us over the top: Herb Brooks is dead and Scotty Bowman is retired. There is nobody else that I would even consider to replace Schafer.[/q]
What about Ditka?
As for whether Schafer has enough to take us over the top: Herb Brooks is dead and Scotty Bowman is retired. There is nobody else that I would even consider to replace Schafer.[/q]
What about Ditka?
Re: Whither Mike Schafer?
Posted by: DeltaOne81 (---.raytheon.com)
Date: March 30, 2005 09:25AM
[Q]calgARI '07 Wrote:
I believe we are starting to see a shift in recruiting where they are starting to target more skilled players. This will not necessarily come at the expense of the size we have come to know and love in the last few years. Scott, Barlow, Romano, and Milo are all guys that are undersized but have tremendous offensive talent. Still, you have Sawada, Kindret, Connors, Mugford, and Greening who will all sustain the physical edge that has really vaulted Cornell into the nation's elite. I think by adding the additional skill up front, the team is attempting/preparing to take the next step from secondary contender to primary, theoretically joining the teams who perennially contend for the National Championship.[/q]
That's interesting to hear and I hope its true. I've thought for a while (maybe expressed on here one or twice) that what we need some guys who know how to score and then make them work in our system. So that we can maintain our powerhouse defense, but when we're on the other end of the ice, we can have some guys who know how to make things happen. Our offense is good enough to win games with our defense, but if we had an offense that we know had some legitimate playmakers who could put the puck in the net when needed, that would probably be the final step to top tier national contender.
Moulson is probably about the only one, but you can't rely on one guy game in and game out. He can't always do it. That would be really great to see if it does come to be. Easier said than done, of course, as Adam points out, but if anyone can do it, Schafer can, and if he can, well... I can't wait
I believe we are starting to see a shift in recruiting where they are starting to target more skilled players. This will not necessarily come at the expense of the size we have come to know and love in the last few years. Scott, Barlow, Romano, and Milo are all guys that are undersized but have tremendous offensive talent. Still, you have Sawada, Kindret, Connors, Mugford, and Greening who will all sustain the physical edge that has really vaulted Cornell into the nation's elite. I think by adding the additional skill up front, the team is attempting/preparing to take the next step from secondary contender to primary, theoretically joining the teams who perennially contend for the National Championship.[/q]
That's interesting to hear and I hope its true. I've thought for a while (maybe expressed on here one or twice) that what we need some guys who know how to score and then make them work in our system. So that we can maintain our powerhouse defense, but when we're on the other end of the ice, we can have some guys who know how to make things happen. Our offense is good enough to win games with our defense, but if we had an offense that we know had some legitimate playmakers who could put the puck in the net when needed, that would probably be the final step to top tier national contender.
Moulson is probably about the only one, but you can't rely on one guy game in and game out. He can't always do it. That would be really great to see if it does come to be. Easier said than done, of course, as Adam points out, but if anyone can do it, Schafer can, and if he can, well... I can't wait
Re: Whither Mike Schafer?
Posted by: Give My Regards (---.oracorp.com)
Date: March 30, 2005 10:02AM
Interesting commentary in today's Ithaca Journal on the Big Red's season and fan expectations:
[ithacajournal.com]
[ithacajournal.com]
___________________________
If you lead a good life, go to Sunday school and church, and say your prayers every night, when you die, you'll go to LYNAH!
If you lead a good life, go to Sunday school and church, and say your prayers every night, when you die, you'll go to LYNAH!
Re: Ithaca Journal review
Posted by: CU at Stanford (---.Stanford.EDU)
Date: March 30, 2005 11:43AM
Amen...Fans, stop beating up Schafer and ourselves! It has been a thrilling ride and I think we all agree that more is in store for us next fall. Let's focus on the positive and leave the coaches to do the "dirty work" (recruiting, getting players in better shape in summer, etc.) during the off-season. I, for one, can't wait for October (and I live in CA!). ![B-]](http://elf.elynah.com/smileys/11.gif "B-]")
Re: Whither Mike Schafer?
Posted by: KenP (192.133.17.---)
Date: March 30, 2005 12:24PM
I think it's hard to underestimate the value of a superstar for building a team capable of winning it all.
- 1985 RPI had Adam Oates
- 1986 Cornell had Niewendyck
- 1989 Harvard had Donato
- 1996 Vemont had Perrin and St Louis
- 2002 and 2003 Minnesota had Vanek
- 2003 Cornell had Murray
Just a few examples. If one or two players have breakout years, we have the potential to be there next year.
- 1985 RPI had Adam Oates
- 1986 Cornell had Niewendyck
- 1989 Harvard had Donato
- 1996 Vemont had Perrin and St Louis
- 2002 and 2003 Minnesota had Vanek
- 2003 Cornell had Murray
Just a few examples. If one or two players have breakout years, we have the potential to be there next year.
Re: agree!
Posted by: RatushnyFan (---.royalusa.com)
Date: March 30, 2005 12:43PM
[Q]nyiballs Wrote:
ben03 Wrote:
RatushnyFan Wrote:
But we lose this game probably 8 times out of 10.[/Q]
these odds would be flipped in our favor on a small sheet.[/Q]
I agree!!!!![/q]
You guys weren't watching the same game that I watched.
Re: Whither Mike Schafer?
Posted by: ninian '72 (---.ed.gov)
Date: March 30, 2005 12:46PM
[Q]DeltaOne81 Wrote:
The fact is, when the stakes are the highest, the team is playing their hardest competition.[/q]
On the money. A bit of historical perspective: St. Ned's teams didn't always finish their seasons as we had expected either. Sandwiched between the championship seasons of 67 and 70 were two years in which the team lost a grand total of one game each season before arriving at the NCAA's. Talk about high expectations. In 68, they lost to UND in the semi's, and in 69 lost a heartbreaker in the finals to Denver 4-3, partly due to exhaustion after having beaten Michigan Tech in OT in the late game the night before. (Ned complained about this scheduling issue, which I believe is why the semis are now on Thursday.) After losing a lot of talent to graduation - including Dryden - no one expected the 70 team to have the juice to continue this kind of performance, but they surprised us. Were they more talented than the previous two teams? Probably not, but talented enough and lucky enough to pull off the perfect season.
Schafer's record speaks for itself, and I hope he spends many more years on the hill. Consider the alternative of having him behind the bench of, say, Clarkson...
The fact is, when the stakes are the highest, the team is playing their hardest competition.[/q]
On the money. A bit of historical perspective: St. Ned's teams didn't always finish their seasons as we had expected either. Sandwiched between the championship seasons of 67 and 70 were two years in which the team lost a grand total of one game each season before arriving at the NCAA's. Talk about high expectations. In 68, they lost to UND in the semi's, and in 69 lost a heartbreaker in the finals to Denver 4-3, partly due to exhaustion after having beaten Michigan Tech in OT in the late game the night before. (Ned complained about this scheduling issue, which I believe is why the semis are now on Thursday.) After losing a lot of talent to graduation - including Dryden - no one expected the 70 team to have the juice to continue this kind of performance, but they surprised us. Were they more talented than the previous two teams? Probably not, but talented enough and lucky enough to pull off the perfect season.
Schafer's record speaks for itself, and I hope he spends many more years on the hill. Consider the alternative of having him behind the bench of, say, Clarkson...
Re: Whither Mike Schafer?
Posted by: RatushnyFan (---.royalusa.com)
Date: March 30, 2005 12:59PM
[Q]KenP Wrote:
I think it's hard to underestimate the value of a superstar for building a team capable of winning it all.
- 1985 RPI had Adam Oates
- 1986 Cornell had Niewendyck
- 1989 Harvard had Donato
- 1996 Vemont had Perrin and St Louis
- 2002 and 2003 Minnesota had Vanek
- 2003 Cornell had Murray
Just a few examples. If one or two players have breakout years, we have the potential to be there next year.
[/q]
I disagree with this. All of these teams had several stars.
1985 - Besides Adam Oates, they had 3 other players with 59-72 points apiece.
1986 - besides Nieuwendyk we had Duanne Moeser and were we really that close to winning it all?
1989 - Donato, while he was MVP of the tourney, was 5th in scoring for Harvard. Peter Ciavaglia, Lane Macdonald, CJ Young and Allen Bourbeau all had more points. Exceptional speed across multiple lines. They absolutely killed us at Lynah. Macdonald is one of the best college hockey players that I've seen.
1996 - I'll agree with you here.
2002/2003 - Vanek wasn't on the '01-'02 championship squad. In '02-'03 when they won, they also had four other significant scorers.
History would say that you need multiple scoring lines to win a championship as well as a great goalie and strong team defense.
I think it's hard to underestimate the value of a superstar for building a team capable of winning it all.
- 1985 RPI had Adam Oates
- 1986 Cornell had Niewendyck
- 1989 Harvard had Donato
- 1996 Vemont had Perrin and St Louis
- 2002 and 2003 Minnesota had Vanek
- 2003 Cornell had Murray
Just a few examples. If one or two players have breakout years, we have the potential to be there next year.
[/q]
I disagree with this. All of these teams had several stars.
1985 - Besides Adam Oates, they had 3 other players with 59-72 points apiece.
1986 - besides Nieuwendyk we had Duanne Moeser and were we really that close to winning it all?
1989 - Donato, while he was MVP of the tourney, was 5th in scoring for Harvard. Peter Ciavaglia, Lane Macdonald, CJ Young and Allen Bourbeau all had more points. Exceptional speed across multiple lines. They absolutely killed us at Lynah. Macdonald is one of the best college hockey players that I've seen.
1996 - I'll agree with you here.
2002/2003 - Vanek wasn't on the '01-'02 championship squad. In '02-'03 when they won, they also had four other significant scorers.
History would say that you need multiple scoring lines to win a championship as well as a great goalie and strong team defense.
Re: Whither Mike Schafer?
Posted by: Beeeej (---.rapiddevelopers.com)
Date: March 30, 2005 01:21PM
Leaving aside for the moment whether Schafer has only himself to "blaim" for high expectations...
How exactly would the upcoming junior class remember being in the Frozen Four in 2003?!
Perpetual journalism curmudgeon,
Beeeej
How exactly would the upcoming junior class remember being in the Frozen Four in 2003?!
Perpetual journalism curmudgeon,
Beeeej
___________________________
Beeeej, Esq.
"Cornell isn't an organization. It's a loose affiliation of independent fiefdoms united by a common hockey team."
- Steve Worona
Beeeej, Esq.
"Cornell isn't an organization. It's a loose affiliation of independent fiefdoms united by a common hockey team."
- Steve Worona
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/30/2005 01:26PM by Beeeej.
Re: Whither Mike Schafer?
Posted by: Trotsky (---.cust-rtr.swbell.net)
Date: March 30, 2005 02:29PM
Prior to Schafer's arrival, Cornell had had 20+ win seasons in 1 season (1986, his senior year) in the 16 seasons between 1980 and 1995. In the 10 seasons since, Mike is 1 win short of *averaging* 20 wins!
Re: agree!
Posted by: ben03 (---.rochester.res.rr.com)
Date: March 30, 2005 02:38PM
[Q]RatushnyFan Wrote:
nyiballs Wrote:
ben03 Wrote:
RatushnyFan Wrote:
But we lose this game probably 8 times out of 10.[/Q]
these odds would be flipped in our favor on a small sheet.[/Q]
I agree!!!!![/Q]
You guys weren't watching the same game that I watched.[/q]
i definitely watched the same game (in person) ... i’m not a fan of playing monday morning QB but the big sheet factored into the game more than most are likely to admit (even some Big Red fans). yes Minnesota controlled play through most of the first two periods. and i honestly believe this was not a surprise to coach and the boys. in fact, i think it was part of the plan. Lucia went on record as planning to out skate the Red as well as out shoot us and hoping to score on odds alone (mr. scorekeeper gave them more than a little help but that's another story all together and of no consequence to the actual game). they did accomplish both and still barely, just barely beat the boys in Red. my point, as has been said here many times before, is our style of play on NA ice will wear a team down much faster than on an Olympic sheet. therefore allowing our physical dominance to dictate play, create defensive miscues, and capitalizing. it essentially amounts to a waiting game, a very physical waiting game. so yes, i do believe we win that exact game 8-9/10 times on a small sheet. no question.
as an aside, the Minnesota fans i spoke with after the game were not so confident their speed/talent would beat us (it hadn’t for 60 minutes) and admitted they were more than a little apprehensive heading into OT. another told me he feared the bigger Red had kept it within reach without really dominating play in regulation and didn’t like their odds in OT.
___________________________
Let's GO Red!!!Re: Whither Mike Schafer?Posted by: billhoward (---.ziffdavis.com)Date: March 30, 2005 04:48PM
Another case of having to waffle on the stats. At some pont in the official history of Cornell hockey it's going to say, "The man who was to become Cornell's all-time winningest coach averaged [nearly, almost, just about, a shade under] 20 wins over his first ten seasons." One bleeping victory shy of 200 over the decade.Re: Don't overrate Mike SchaferPosted by: Josh '99 (---.nyc.res.rr.com)Date: March 31, 2005 12:07AM
[Q]adamw Wrote:
Mike Schafer doesn't need my defense - His own peers have voted him on top many times. But the biggest indication of great coaching is player improvement year over year, and this almost always happens with Cornell players.[/q]Speaking of which, does anyone know when the Penrose is announced? Maybe this will be the year... (*fingers crossed*)
[Q]ben03 Wrote:
i definitely watched the same game (in person) ... i’m not a fan of playing monday morning QB but the big sheet factored into the game more than most are likely to admit (even some Big Red fans). yes Minnesota controlled play through most of the first two periods. and i honestly believe this was not a surprise to coach and the boys. in fact, i think it was part of the plan. Lucia went on record as planning to out skate the Red as well as out shoot us and hoping to score on odds alone (mr. scorekeeper gave them more than a little help but that's another story all together and of no consequence to the actual game). they did accomplish both and still barely, just barely beat the boys in Red. my point, as has been said here many times before, is our style of play on NA ice will wear a team down much faster than on an Olympic sheet. therefore allowing our physical dominance to dictate play, create defensive miscues, and capitalizing. it essentially amounts to a waiting game, a very physical waiting game. so yes, i do believe we win that exact game 8-9/10 times on a small sheet. no question.[/q]Does anyone else remember the Mankato game? And how it was tied midway through the 2nd before the physical play started to wear the speedy little guys down? I think Sunday's game would've played out a lot more like that if it had been played on NHL ice.
Re: agree!Posted by: RatushnyFan (---.royalusa.com)Date: March 31, 2005 07:58AM
[I think we were quite fortunate to be tied ...... and as I've said in other posts we played nearly a technically perfect game. We don't beat this team on the smaller ice IMHO because they would still dominate us in terms of shots and chances. And this team probably isn't the best team in the country. Great team, great year, and certainly a great coach but we need more speed and more scoring talent to win a national championship. I'll be cheering for us to get there.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/31/2005 08:41AM by RatushnyFan.Re: agree!Posted by: KeithK (---.external.lmco.com)Date: March 31, 2005 10:51AM
I don't think we had the (on-paper) best team in the country this year either. But neither did Minnesota. On small ice they probably would have had many more shots, but so what? Their puck control offense was certainly helped by the extra space. I think there's much less of a territorial advantage on NA ice and we would have worn them down sooner. Would we have won? No guarantees at all. But the game would've played out differently.
Of course, since the game wasn't on small ice and never will be this is all just unprovable opinion. So we'll have to agree to disagree here.Re: agree!Posted by: ben03 (---.rochester.res.rr.com)Date: March 31, 2005 10:53AM
[Q]KeithK Wrote:
So we'll have to agree to disagree here.[/q]
Keith, you beat me to it ... looks like this is the best option
___________________________
Let's GO Red!!!Re: Whither Mike Schafer?Posted by: Facetimer (---.toddweld.com)Date: March 31, 2005 11:25AM
As nyiballs one time agent, I think you all should cut him a break here. Here are two reasons why he knows more than you about hockey and Mike Shafer:
1. He is an experienced USCHO poster (509 career posts); and
2. He was, at the peak of his career, the 4th best goalie at Cornell.
Cut him some slack.
___________________________
I'm the one who views hockey games merely as something to do before going to Rulloff's and Dino's.Re: Rink size, speed and passingPosted by: Steve M (---.fluor.com)Date: March 31, 2005 11:46AM
I think not only would we have worn down Minnesota faster, we would have had a lot more scoring opportunities as well. The goal would be closer to the side boards and they wouldn't have been able to play keep away nearly as well. I'd say Minny wins a game like Sunday's 70% of the time, but put it on NHL ice and take away their home advantage and I think it's a tossup or slightly in our favor. UNH was a much faster team than the 2002 and 2003 squads and neither of those games looked at all like Sunday's. Harvard's win over us in Lake Placid in 2002, OTOH, at times did look like Sunday, although not nearly to the same extent. People can call it an excuse, whining, etc., but I think an objective observer would come to the same conclusion; that Olympic size ice is a big disadvantage for Cornell vs. a significantly faster team.
I do agree with you that to win a NC we need more speed and scoring threats. I hope one of our incoming freshman turns out to be a sniper to complement Moulson. I also think the Abbotts and Hynes have the potential to score a lot more goals their senior year, much like the seniors this year improved. I never played hockey beyond ponds and intramurals, but my impression is that it's a lot easier to improve one's passing & puck handling skills when you're already at the collegiate level, than to become a much faster skater over the summer. When I saw my first game of the year (vs. BC), I immediately noticed how much better their passing was, and knew ours didn't compare to the WCHA powerhouses, having seen quite of few of their games by then. Sure enough Minnesota wasn't just faster than us, but their passing was also much better. Just like Cook improved his slap shot over the summer, wouldn't it be possible for the team to develop better passing and puck handling skills if they were to pair up with someone and commit to it? Thoughts from anyone who's played competitively?
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.