Notice how Ari's so pessimistic and often critical in his recent posts and columns? And this from the guy who has more insightful things to say than just about anybody else. Welcome to the club, Ari: Like someone from the class of '96, or '85, or '74, it now dawns on you that you'll most likely be leaving Ithaca the same way you entered -- without a T-shirt that reads, "Cornell Hockey - NCAA Champs."
I thought for sure 2002-03 was going to be our year, and then last year. Nope, not to be. And this year looks as if we're going to have to fight to make round one of the NCAAs. Heck, even Albany looks kind of hazy. Tough way to go out.
It's pretty small consolation that Sox fans waited even longer for that follow-on championship.
[quote billhoward]Welcome to the club, Ari: Like someone from the class of '96, or '85, or '74, it now dawns on you that you'll most likely be leaving Ithaca the same way you entered -- without a T-shirt that reads, "Cornell Hockey - NCAA Champs."[/quote]
Given the way my freshman year kicked things off, I'm still quite satisfied with all the "ECAC Champs" shirts I wound up buying my senior year. :-D
--RichH '96
In 1994 I think those of us that actually went to the games were just relieved to make the ECAC playoffs. ::uhoh::
It might be a stretch to say that the disappointment is due to a realization that Cornell will not win the NCAAs this year. From the season preview:
Quote from: AriRegardless of how this season goes, the über-talented freshmen class should indicate that if the Big Red cannot get back to the NCAA Tournament this year, they will be back sooner rather than later.
Doesn't exactly sound like he's predicting an NCAA title run. Yes, we're all disappointed at how this season is turning out, but an '07's disappointment would be that we might not make Albany this year, or make Lynah loud, not that we won't win NCAAs. The better chance for that would be in '05 or '06. It's completely understandable to be pessimistic and critical after this horrid stretch of hockey.
[quote ebilmes]It's completely understandable to be pessimistic and critical after this horrid stretch of hockey.[/quote]
Honestly, I think we'd all have an easier time dealing with this horrid stretch of hockey if we hadn't actually had some pretty good runs this season. Most of us expected a tough year; we're getting a tough early second half after a surprisingly good first half, and it's harder to take that way.
A lot of this is in the column but I might as well bring it in now considering it is pertinent to the subject. Final sentence of this week's column:
"Cornell will finish the regular season 7-2-1 and finish in the top four of the conference."
This season is very very similar to 03-04. That year at exactly this time, Cornell won just once in a seven game stretch and looked just as horrible as they have recently, even on home ice. That team went on to win 7 of the final 8 regular season games and was certainly capable of winning in Albany. Obviously they didn't even make it, but the point is that I think this team is still capable of doing it. The ECACHL is about as weak this year as it was that year and anyone can do it. With that, I still think Cornell will win the ECACHL Tournament and make it to the NCAA's. This team has shown they can perform at a very high level. It's in there somewhere.
[quote calgARI '07]With that, I still think Cornell will win the ECACHL Tournament and make it to the NCAA's.[/quote]
I think you're dreaming. But God knows I'd love to see you turn out right.
[quote calgARI '07]
This season is very very similar to 03-04.[/quote]
Neeeever happened.
[quote French Rage][quote calgARI '07]
This season is very very similar to 03-04.[/quote]
Neeeever happened.[/quote]
my memory has been restored, it most certainly happened!
2003-2004 received phone call from my son . no goalie. one had torn ham string so bad couldn't go on ice. the other was on crutches . as a parent listening to all the negative comments about the team was really dis hearting. especially when our goalie couldn't practice and the goals that were scored had a lot to do with lack of mobility. injuries to ryan at the end also contributed to team failure to reach playoffs. my son played final series with a grade 1 shoulder separation to rt shoulder and a grade 2 to left and was only able to play with being shot up. comparing the effort of the 2003-2004 team to the whatever is happening to this years team as ari's comment state 'just didn't happen " seems to be closer to the truth
[quote Beeeej][quote ebilmes]It's completely understandable to be pessimistic and critical after this horrid stretch of hockey.[/quote]
Honestly, I think we'd all have an easier time dealing with this horrid stretch of hockey if we hadn't actually had some pretty good runs this season. Most of us expected a tough year; we're getting a tough early second half after a surprisingly good first half, and it's harder to take that way.[/quote]Exactly Beeeej. If we were 9-7-3 and 5-4-3 at this point in the season after three months of split weekends, peopel would be unhappy but relatively understanding. Stepping back and looking at the big picture, the team is pretty much where we should have expected it to be at this point in the season. Not that we should be unconcerned about the current situation.
[quote KeithK][quote Beeeej][quote ebilmes]It's completely understandable to be pessimistic and critical after this horrid stretch of hockey.[/quote]
Honestly, I think we'd all have an easier time dealing with this horrid stretch of hockey if we hadn't actually had some pretty good runs this season. Most of us expected a tough year; we're getting a tough early second half after a surprisingly good first half, and it's harder to take that way.[/quote]Exactly Beeeej. If we were 9-7-3 and 5-4-3 at this point in the season after three months of split weekends, peopel would be unhappy but relatively understanding. Stepping back and looking at the big picture, the team is pretty much where we should have expected it to be at this point in the season. Not that we should be unconcerned about the current situation.[/quote]
How you feel about where we are depends on what you think the true baseline ability of the team is. If you think we are a good team going through a rough stretch, that is one thing. If you think that the team is playing at its real level after a surpising good (and possibly lucky) start, that is another thing altogether.
I've only seen the team nearly blow a lead against a mediocre Princeton squad so I'm a bit worried that we are in for a long painful homestretch. I wouldn't mind at all if people who see them every weekend try to cheer me up.
[quote ugarte][quote KeithK][quote Beeeej][quote ebilmes]It's completely understandable to be pessimistic and critical after this horrid stretch of hockey.[/quote]
Honestly, I think we'd all have an easier time dealing with this horrid stretch of hockey if we hadn't actually had some pretty good runs this season. Most of us expected a tough year; we're getting a tough early second half after a surprisingly good first half, and it's harder to take that way.[/quote]Exactly Beeeej. If we were 9-7-3 and 5-4-3 at this point in the season after three months of split weekends, peopel would be unhappy but relatively understanding. Stepping back and looking at the big picture, the team is pretty much where we should have expected it to be at this point in the season. Not that we should be unconcerned about the current situation.[/quote]
How you feel about where we are depends on what you think the true baseline ability of the team is. If you think we are a good team going through a rough stretch, that is one thing. If you think that the team is playing at its real level after a surpising good (and possibly lucky) start, that is another thing altogether.
I've only seen the team nearly blow a lead against a mediocre Princeton squad so I'm a bit worried that we are in for a long painful homestretch. I wouldn't mind at all if people who see them every weekend try to cheer me up.[/quote]
I don't think Princeton is that bad this year. I saw them earlier this year and remember they were pretty tight defensively. Then again, a mediocre Princeton team is a good year for them::nut::
I don't have a problem with us losing to Maine, or even to SLU and Clarkson on the road this year. But we should have beaten Yale and Brown. Full stop.
And SHU never happened. ::nut::
[quote Jeff Hopkins '82]And SHU never happened. ::nut::[/quote]
... again ...
[quote DeltaOne81][quote Jeff Hopkins '82]And SHU never happened. ::nut::[/quote]
... again ...[/quote]
Given that Shaun Hannah is the coach at SHU, we should schedule a game against them sometime::whistle::.
[quote Al DeFlorio][quote DeltaOne81][quote Jeff Hopkins '82]And SHU never happened. ::nut::[/quote]
... again ...[/quote]
Given that Shaun Hannah is the coach at SHU, we should schedule a game against them sometime::whistle::.[/quote]
Only if Ken Dryden, goalie for the undefeated 1970 team, can attend.
[quote Jeff Hopkins '82]I don't have a problem with us losing to Maine, or even to SLU and Clarkson on the road this year. But we should have beaten Yale and Brown. Full stop.
And SHU never happened. ::nut::[/quote]
uhhhh, WAYNE STATE?!?! At Lynah no less. Now that's inexcusable. They're awful.
One downside to the increased secrecy or privacy about player injuries is that when a player is hurt (but still plays) fans who don't know of the injury may attribute the poorer play to the player rather than his injuries.
So if Ari is right about Bitz' lesser play and lesser leadership, it could be for either reason, but we won't know until after the season if at all.
There's a rough parallel in the workplace: When I see a coworker underperforming, or coming in late and leaving early, or slacking off, or sending nonsense memos, it could be two things: The guy's underperforming, or he's doing drugs again. Reason No. 2 was actually the simpler answer that I preferred to believe, even if it was probably wrong. Look at President Bush and the last couple months: If you don't like the job he's been doing, you could believe he's just not performing, or you could conclude he and Laura are privately running a glaucoma-abatement smoke-a-thon. Just a thought ...
from bill howard:Look at President Bush and the last couple months: If you don't like the job he's been doing, you could believe he's just not performing, or you could conclude he and Laura are privately running a glaucoma-abatement smoke-a-thon. Just a thought ...[/quote]
If only that were true we'd all be much better off. I don't think a Rasta would be sending his kids to die for nefarious reasons. But this is probably a discussion for another forum...
Can we keep the political comments in the JSID forum?
The seniors who really let us down are the ones who bailed before this season began. At one time Cornell hockey was fairly unique among successful Div.1 programs in that most (almost all) of its players were actual student athletes. A four year commitment & graduation mattered. It would seem that such is no longer the case. Now the lure of the professional ranks (and big money) is as prevalent here as at any other major college or university. Too bad. Graduation didn't hurt Ken Dryden any. But, then, he could spell dedication.
[quote calgARI '07]That year at exactly this time, Cornell won just once in a seven game stretch and looked just as horrible as they have recently, even on home ice. That team went on to win 7 of the final 8 regular season games and was certainly capable of winning in Albany.[/quote]
That year, Cornell had Dave McKee in goal. Over that 8-game period, he let in 1 or 0 goals six times.
This year is not a tragedy -- 1993 is a tragedy. But they will probably hover around .500 for the remainder of the season, for the flaws that people have identified over the last few weeks. If some scorers get hot, maybe we'll have some fun in Albany.
To the dinosaurs, the year I would compare this to is 1983. The team was just one year past back-to-back NCAA appearances, and it has a tremendous freshman class including Duanne Moeser, Pete Natyshak, and some guy named Schafer. They had an on-again, off-again early season, then went catatonic in early January and didn't recover until mid-February. From then on, they won out -- their final four games -- but the ECAC only took 8 of 17 teams to their playoffs, so they fell short.
This year's team won't have the conference elimination problem. Hopefully, we'll get to see how far that late rush can take them.
[quote Trotsky]
That year, Cornell had Dave McKee in goal. Over that 8-game period, he let in 1 or 0 goals six times.
[/quote]
Yes, and he had his fair share of struggles up to that point in the season. I'm sure many will disagree, but I think Davenport has just as much if not more upside than McKee.
[quote calgARI '07][quote Trotsky]
That year, Cornell had Dave McKee in goal. Over that 8-game period, he let in 1 or 0 goals six times.
[/quote]
Yes, and he had his fair share of struggles up to that point in the season. I'm sure many will disagree, but I think Davenport has just as much if not more upside than McKee.[/quote]For the sake of argument I'll accept that statement. The difference McKee was able to fulfill his potential to a maximum degree at least in his sophomore season. If Davenport has a high ceiling we haven't seen him play up to that level yet. Hopefully he will, though I'll be skeptical about his ability until he elevates his game a bit. (Though in fairness McKee was no world beater three years ago either.)
[quote KeithK][quote calgARI] I'm sure many will disagree, but I think Davenport has just as much if not more upside than McKee.[/quote]For the sake of argument I'll accept that statement. The difference McKee was able to fulfill his potential to a maximum degree at least in his sophomore season. If Davenport has a high ceiling we haven't seen him play up to that level yet. Hopefully he will, though I'll be skeptical about his ability until he elevates his game a bit. (Though in fairness McKee was no world beater three years ago either.)[/quote]
McKee was pretty damn good his first year,.920 save %.
[quote KeithK][quote calgARI '07][quote Trotsky]
That year, Cornell had Dave McKee in goal. Over that 8-game period, he let in 1 or 0 goals six times.
[/quote]
Yes, and he had his fair share of struggles up to that point in the season. I'm sure many will disagree, but I think Davenport has just as much if not more upside than McKee.[/quote]For the sake of argument I'll accept that statement. The difference McKee was able to fulfill his potential to a maximum degree at least in his sophomore season. If Davenport has a high ceiling we haven't seen him play up to that level yet. Hopefully he will, though I'll be skeptical about his ability until he elevates his game a bit. (Though in fairness McKee was no world beater three years ago either.)[/quote]
Absolutely. McKee was unbelievable in 04-05 and IMO put forth the best goaltending performance I have seen at Cornell be it a smaller sample than most. Davenport has shown glimpses as McKee did his freshman year. He has had four or five spectacular games and four or five awful ones which is not all that different than what McKee had done to this point his freshman year. This is about the point where McKee took off and got his game to the next level.
I know it doesn't mean everything in the world, but it is important not to forget how much success Davenport had in the USHL, arguably the toughest junior A league. McKee was good but not as successful in a far lesser league. Again, doesn't mean a ton, but having a winning pedigree is very important IMO.
Also notable is that Davenport's best game came against far and away the toughest opponent.
[quote jkahn]
McKee was pretty damn good his first year,.920 save %.[/quote]
His numbers certainly were pretty damn good but his performance was inconsistent just as Davenport's has been. As I said in the above post, McKee elevated his game at this point of his freshman year and I'm hoping Davenport can do the same.
[quote jkahn]McKee was pretty damn good his first year,.920 save %.[/quote]True. That's why he ended up playing every game. My point was just that he played his best hockey in 2005 and that this season was a step up compared to the previous season.
Hopefully Davenport does in fact have a higher upside than McKee, as Ari believes, and actually reaches that level of performance at Cornell. I'm not that optimistic, but I'd imagine Davenport is capable of elevating his game to some degree.
[quote Johnny 5]The seniors who really let us down are the ones who bailed before this season began. At one time Cornell hockey was fairly unique among successful Div.1 programs in that most (almost all) of its players were actual student athletes. A four year commitment & graduation mattered. It would seem that such is no longer the case. Now the lure of the professional ranks (and big money) is as prevalent here as at any other major college or university. Too bad. Graduation didn't hurt Ken Dryden any. But, then, he could spell dedication.[/quote]Come on, if you had been Bill Gates and could have left school, would you have stayed just to finish your four years? Most of us go to school to get started in the work world. Once we have that opportunity we start our job. For most that's four years, for some of us slow learners it's closer to ten years. If I could have done it in three, who knows???
As we're on the subject, what would you say about Nieuwendyk?
[quote Johnny 5]But, then, he could spell dedication.[/quote]
There are plenty of players who graduate from Cornell who couldn't spell dedication. The difference between the massive majority of players who stay for four years and the ones who leave early is that the latter are generally much better. The guys who stay four years stay because they aren't good enough to go pro and/or are good enough and are not pursued to leave. Jack Johnson and Jonathan Toews were huge exceptions not leaving after being pursued to. It's too bad that the mid-tier guys leave (anybody that leaves Cornell early is mid-tier for the most part) early especially because for the most part it hurts their development more than it helps. Pelletier, Hynes, LeNeveu, McKee. Maybe Hynes, LeNeveu, and McKee will still make it to the NHL, but I doubt Hynes and McKee thought they were leaving Cornell for the ECHL and I think LeNeveu expected to be in the NHL by now.
[quote calgARI '07][quote Johnny 5]But, then, he could spell dedication.[/quote]
There are plenty of players who graduate from Cornell who couldn't spell dedication. The difference between the massive majority of players who stay for four years and the ones who leave early is that the latter are generally much better. The guys who stay four years stay because they aren't good enough to go pro and/or are good enough and are not pursued to leave. Jack Johnson and Jonathan Toews were huge exceptions not leaving after being pursued to. It's too bad that the mid-tier guys leave (anybody that leaves Cornell early is mid-tier for the most part) early especially because for the most part it hurts their development more than it helps. Pelletier, Hynes, LeNeveu, McKee. Maybe Hynes, LeNeveu, and McKee will still make it to the NHL, but I doubt Hynes and McKee thought they were leaving Cornell for the ECHL and I think LeNeveu expected to be in the NHL by now.[/quote]
Or maybe for some of the guys, they realized school isn't for them. It's certainly not for everyone - had Pokulok stayed, he probably wouldn't have the grades to keep playing. Maybe for some guys, they're just happier just playing hockey - I certainly can't begrudge someone for doing what they love, no matter what level it may be at.
[quote calgARI '07]The difference between the massive majority of players who stay for four years and the ones who leave early is that the latter are generally much better. The guys who stay four years stay because they aren't good enough to go pro and/or are good enough and are not pursued to leave.[/quote]
I think this is what bugs, that leaving school early is now a goal and/or sign of success. Do you think when Cornell interviews prospective students they're looking for kids who see finishing their degrees as plan B?
[quote jtwcornell91][quote calgARI '07]The difference between the massive majority of players who stay for four years and the ones who leave early is that the latter are generally much better. The guys who stay four years stay because they aren't good enough to go pro and/or are good enough and are not pursued to leave.[/quote]
I think this is what bugs, that leaving school early is now a goal and/or sign of success. Do you think when Cornell interviews prospective students they're looking for kids who see finishing their degrees as plan B?[/quote]
I think Cornell has their eyes wide open here. They may not be tOSU bringing in Greg Oden for one-and-out but they are well aware that when they bring in a goalie that is being considered for Team Canada they may not keep him for four years.
[quote calgARI '07]... but I doubt Hynes ... thought [he was] leaving Cornell for the ECHL and I think LeNeveu expected to be in the NHL by now.[/quote]
Hynes got hurt; he probably didn't expect that either. All things considered, he is probably happier that he got hurt after signing a contract than had the same thing happened in a game at Quinnipiac.
LeNeveu got to the NHL without the need of additional seasoning at Cornell. I'm sure he is disappointed by both his play in the NHL and the scapegoating by Gretzky. I still think that if he had to do it over he makes the same choice.
McKee is probably disappointed about where he is - but the time spent as the emergency goalie in Anaheim probably takes some of the sting out of it.
[quote ugarte][quote calgARI '07]... but I doubt Hynes ... thought [he was] leaving Cornell for the ECHL and I think LeNeveu expected to be in the NHL by now.[/quote]
LeNeveu got to the NHL without the need of additional seasoning at Cornell. I'm sure he is disappointed by both his play in the NHL and the scapegoating by Gretzky. I still think that if he had to do it over he makes the same choice.
[/quote]
At the time, it sure seemed as if it were scapegoating by Gretzky, but considering how well they have played since they brought in Tellqvist (LeNeveu's replacement), maybe he was on to something.
[quote calgARI '07][quote ugarte][quote calgARI '07]... but I doubt Hynes ... thought [he was] leaving Cornell for the ECHL and I think LeNeveu expected to be in the NHL by now.[/quote]
LeNeveu got to the NHL without the need of additional seasoning at Cornell. I'm sure he is disappointed by both his play in the NHL and the scapegoating by Gretzky. I still think that if he had to do it over he makes the same choice.
[/quote]
At the time, it sure seemed as if it were scapegoating by Gretzky, but considering how well they have played since they brought in Tellqvist (LeNeveu's replacement), maybe he was on to something.[/quote]
His Sv% is still better than CuJo's. The team may have been inspired (and Tellqvist's GAA and Sv% are better than LeNeveu's, to be sure) but it is still scapegoating to blame a backup goalie who has played in 6 games.
The thread has taken an interesting turn and probably better turn. The initial subject headline meant, "What a letdown for the seniors like Ari, sitting in the stands, who aren't going to be able to boast about an NCAA title." Maybe because they got let down by senior and would-have-been-senior hockey players.
It's good to see people believe Davenport has incredible upside potential. We have, er, seen the opposite poential a couple times, too.
Comparing today's kids to those of the Dryden era ignores the fact that college hockey in the Dryden period was almost never a springboard to the NHL. There was little to no incentive to leave early.
[quote ugarte]
McKee is probably disappointed about where he is - but the time spent as the emergency goalie in Anaheim probably takes some of the sting out of it.[/quote]
McKee was undrafted. He was a straight free agent when he left, after having a great year. If my memory serves me, he had 4 teams after him, which means he probably got top dollar. Based on that assumption, I assume that his salary for the current year is about $800,000(after all he got an NHL contract). He also got something of a signing bonus, and lets not forget the playoff roster bonuses he got for being on the Anaheim roster for the stretch. Yes, McKee got to be emergency goalie and part of the team for a while(the result of his contract date, not coaching), but I think its the amount of money that he is paid to play the sport he loves that takes some of the sting out.
[quote mtmack25][quote ugarte]
McKee is probably disappointed about where he is - but the time spent as the emergency goalie in Anaheim probably takes some of the sting out of it.[/quote]... but I think its the amount of money that he is paid to play the sport he loves that takes some of the sting out.[/quote]Well, sure, but an entirely different point. I figure that every player who left early did well financially but that doesn't mean they all have the same level of professional satisfaction.
[quote ugarte]McKee is probably disappointed about where he is - but the time spent as the emergency goalie in Anaheim probably takes some of the sting out of it.[/quote]
Another thing to consider: it usually takes at least 2 seasons for even the best NCAA goalies to make the NHL for good. I just compiled a list.
Full NHL: The first season in which more games were played in the NHL than in any other league.
Years: The number of full seasons between the final college season and the first full NHL season.
Player left College Full NHL Years
KFD 1969 1972 2
Brian Hayward 1981 1983 1
Darren Eliot 1983 1985 1
Doug Dadswell 1986 1988 1
Mike Richter 1987 1990 2
Ed Belfour 1987 1991 3
Curtis Joseph 1989 1991 1
Robb Stauber! 1989 1993 3
Garth Snow 1993 1996 2
Mike Dunham 1993 1997 3
Jim Carey 1994 1996 1
Tim Thomas 1997 2006 8
Marty Turco 1998 2001 2
Ryan Miller! 2002 2006* 3(2)*
Wade Dubielewicz 2003 ? 3+
Dave LeNeveu 2003 ? 3+
Jim Howard 2005 ? 1+
Dave McKee 2006 ? ?
! = Hobey Baker Award
* = Ryan Miller was NHL ready in the non-existant season of '04-'05
I know that Ken Freaking Dryden played on the Canadian National Team and led the Habs through the playoffs with minimal NHL experience prior to his first full NHL season, but he still played a year in the AHL. My favorite on this list is obviously Tim Thomas, since in 1997, he was all set to push Patrick Roy into retirement. :-) A lot of perseverance from that guy to have finally made it in Boston.
I think it's tougher to make it today than it was in the '80s, since there's a lot more competition from Europe for the limited spots. But nobody that I can find has ever made "the jump" without at least a full year of seasoning at a lower level.
I may have missed it from an alumni thread, but it looks like JMP is no longer with the Amerks in the AHL and is now with Adler-Mannheim in Germay.
[quote ugarte]Well, sure, but an entirely different point. I figure that every player who left early did well financially but that doesn't mean they all have the same level of professional satisfaction.[/quote]
I stand corrected:
Shane Hynes: $540,000
Sasha Pokulok: $850,000
Dave McKee: $850,000
Ryan O'Byrne: $635,000
per www2.sportsnet.ca
All doing very well for themselves.
I do go back to my aside on McKee, though. He was on the roster because of CBA rules, not necessarily because of his performance.
[quote calgARI '07][quote KeithK][quote calgARI '07][quote Trotsky]
That year, Cornell had Dave McKee in goal. Over that 8-game period, he let in 1 or 0 goals six times.
[/quote]
Yes, and he had his fair share of struggles up to that point in the season. I'm sure many will disagree, but I think Davenport has just as much if not more upside than McKee.[/quote]For the sake of argument I'll accept that statement. The difference McKee was able to fulfill his potential to a maximum degree at least in his sophomore season. If Davenport has a high ceiling we haven't seen him play up to that level yet. Hopefully he will, though I'll be skeptical about his ability until he elevates his game a bit. (Though in fairness McKee was no world beater three years ago either.)[/quote]
Absolutely. McKee was unbelievable in 04-05 and IMO put forth the best goaltending performance I have seen at Cornell be it a smaller sample than most. Davenport has shown glimpses as McKee did his freshman year. He has had four or five spectacular games and four or five awful ones which is not all that different than what McKee had done to this point his freshman year. This is about the point where McKee took off and got his game to the next level.
I know it doesn't mean everything in the world, but it is important not to forget how much success Davenport had in the USHL, arguably the toughest junior A league. McKee was good but not as successful in a far lesser league. Again, doesn't mean a ton, but having a winning pedigree is very important IMO.
Also notable is that Davenport's best game came against far and away the toughest opponent.[/quote]
Who Wayne State?
I'm sorry guys but Davenport is no Mckee. Firstly, remember that Mckee won out the starting job from Davenport. Second, Davenport has been pulled in 1/2 a year more than Mckee did in over 3 years. Davenport may have more potential than what he has shown so far but he definitely is not even close to becoming a #1 goalie in the nation.
[quote Omie]
I'm sorry guys but Davenport is no Mckee. Firstly, remember that Mckee won out the starting job from Davenport. Second, Davenport has been pulled in 1/2 a year more than Mckee did in over 3 years. Davenport may have more potential than what he has shown so far but he definitely is not even close to becoming a #1 goalie in the nation.[/quote]
Is it possible that Schafer is just being harder on Davenport than he was McKee?
McKee was the clear #1 when Davenport came in as a freshman - he didn't win out any job from him. (Not sure why Davenport never got a start but that is for another time.) Bottom line to me is that Davenport had a ton of success after leaving Cornell. He won a championship in arguably the toughest junior A league in North America which says a lot about him. I think his play is being negatively affected by the way Schafer is treating him.
or maybe it was schafer after finding out that davenport sucked, was undiciplined or made of glass or something sent him to juniors to toughen him up and season him another year knowing McKee could bolt for the NHL and now that hes back he is showing that he is not good enough for this next level of hockey. i'm just saying.
Quote from: OmieI'm sorry guys but Davenport is no Mckee.
I don't think that argument can be made yet- it's important to remember the type of defense McKee played behind (esp. in 04-05)...obvious but yet to be mentioned on this thread. This year's team basically has one experienced though not dominating upperclassman defensemen in Krantz and one impressive younger player in Seminoff. Compare that to Cook, Downs, Gleed, Obyrne, Pokulok, not to mention a ton of two-way forwards in 04-05. And McKee's stats did go down when a bunch of those guys graduated. I think Davenport has the ability to do good things. I don't see goaltending as one of this team's major problems as much as team identity- what kind of game do they want to play? (conservative defense, rush offense, power offense, transition? etc.) This should come from leadership and coaching.
True. However, that is exactly the point. Cornell hockey, and college sport in general, are a victim (or beneficiary) of our capitalist ethos. At one time kids attended college to get an education, thereby benefiting both themselves and our society. Sports were only a game. Then institutions of higher learning discovered that sports were also a cash cow. A successful program generates income, advertises the name of the institution, and attracts students who pay tuition. In todays competitive education market all this is essential for a school to survive. But, it comes at its own price. Because every college or university now has to find ways to attract not just the best students, but also the best athletes. And, as we are only too aware, the two are not always mutually inclusive. What we now have are too many "student-athletes" who are nothing but mercenaries hired to keep a school's name in front of the public. Is it no wonder then that they have no allegiance to their "employer"; only to their sport and the rewards it offers.Is this bad? I guess it depends one's own needs. However, it becomes difficult to become emotionally invested in a team, be it at the collegiate or even the professional level, when one realizes that the only allegiance the players have is not to their school, town, or fans; only to the almighty dollar. This isn't the Cornell hockey I remember, but it is a sign of the times. Perhaps it's the price we pay for a successful Division 1 program. One game at a time.
[quote Johnny 5]At one time kids attended college to get an education, thereby benefiting both themselves and our society. Sports were only a game.[/quote]
Except, this isn't at all the way college sports developed. At one time, kids attended college as a four-year-long debutante's coming out party prior to taking over as the junior officer at Pater's firm. The dominant Nineteenth Century college sports teams were manned by finalists for the Upperclass Twit of the Year Award. Money was a given -- student-athletes couldn't be enticed by the allure of a professional sports career when professional sports would pay them less than the family gardener, and they were already set for life on the Choate-Princeton-Wall Street gravy train.
First, I must apologize for my considerable delay in replying to this thread. I was out of the country on business.
Yes, you're absolutely correct. I did not take the anarcho-syndicalist viewpoint into consideration. You may say to yourself, huh? However, it logically follows that Chairman Mao was a visionary in his decision to purge his nation of elitists and intellectuals. His foresight ultimately allowed the children of the disenfranchised Chinese masses to better themselves academically. Since, eventually there was nobody left in China to teach them anything. It necessitated that they come here, to the glorious U.S. of A., to further their education; especially in math & science. Thus, freeing our kids to pursue more financially rewarding pursuits such as: acting, competing on American Idol, hosting MTV, and/or majoring in college sports. The only real down side of this being that China hasn't won an Olympic gold medal in hockey. (Thank whomever you choose that U.S. kids can't, yet, make big money pursuing a career in professional gymnastics or swimming.) Of course, given the rate that the Chinese economy is expanding, soon they may be well enough off financially that their children can emulate ours. However, with no domestic scientists or engineers, by that time our kids may be assembling Chinese iPods for 50 cents an hour. Hey, anybody interested in buying Chrysler?
And, please, forgive me if I'm unable to post again for a while. I'm leaving on another business trip to Taiwan. But, in my absence, "Go Big Red".
Oh, and yes Brian, you can use my tickets. I'll let you know what CSTV sounds like in Mandarin.