Not a bad period , some sloppy play early led to some yale chances that Andy stopped and then 2 PP goals allowed and ours is still struggling. did have Mowery pt blank early and he missed. Played better as the period went on but not sure we can score. the PP is often just a way to kill time, even when we control it and make good plays we dont put it home.
not sure what to say.. a major leads to a goal... Andy gets pulled after 5 goals. every chance CU got that could lead to a goal I dont even think we got on net.. Yale played well and buried the chances which were too many..
this team needs a couple guys that make D's worry since I dont think we can come up with much speed in one off season
Quote from: upprdecknot sure what to say.. a major leads to a goal... Andy gets pulled after 5 goals. every chance CU got that could lead to a goal I dont even think we got on net.. Yale played well and buried the chances which were too many..
this team needs a couple guys that make D's worry since I dont think we can come up with much speed in one off season
Need to have the top ECAC teams come back to the pack. Cornell's a couple of years away, at least -- just not enough speed and skill to compete at that level. 0 for 5 vs Yale and Union while out-scored 23-4 this season.
Quote from: ithacatQuote from: upprdecknot sure what to say.. a major leads to a goal... Andy gets pulled after 5 goals. every chance CU got that could lead to a goal I dont even think we got on net.. Yale played well and buried the chances which were too many..
this team needs a couple guys that make D's worry since I dont think we can come up with much speed in one off season
Need to have the top ECAC teams come back to the pack. Cornell's a couple of years away, at least -- just not enough speed and skill to compete at that level. 0 for 5 vs Yale and Union while out-scored 23-4 this season.
Not if it means the conference being even less competitive nationally. I'd rather not have the ECAC be a parity-filled league playing at an AHA level. Let's all hope Yale doesn't go one and done in their home regional again...
The coaching staff really needs to figure out how to play teams like Yale and Union, because it's clear they haven't yet got a clue.
E.g., a Yale player gets the puck and *immediately* passes it off to someone else: bam! bam! bam! the puck is up ice.
A Cornell player gets the puck and stands there dribbling it for a few seconds trying to figure out who to send it to.
A Yale D beats a Cornell forward to the puck in the defensive zone and pops it over to the center who is supporting the puck near the faceoff dot: bam! bam! bam! the puck is up ice.
A Cornell D beats a Yale forward to the puck in the defensive zone and throws it up the boards without looking, not knowing that the only one there to receive the "pass" is a Yale D, who passes it to the open man on the far side.
These sorts of things happened dozens of times each period. Yale only needs to capitalize on a tiny percentage of these to win a game 6-0.
The difference is astonishing. Yale plays fantastic hockey: there is simply no getting around that. Can the Cornell coaching staff figure out how to counter this? Four years on and I'm still waiting.
Quote from: Kyle RoseThe coaching staff really needs to figure out how to play teams like Yale and Union, because it's clear they haven't yet got a clue.
E.g., a Yale player gets the puck and *immediately* passes it off to someone else: bam! bam! bam! the puck is up ice.
A Cornell player gets the puck and stands there dribbling it for a few seconds trying to figure out who to send it to.
A Yale D beats a Cornell forward to the puck in the defensive zone and pops it over to the center who is supporting the puck near the faceoff dot: bam! bam! bam! the puck is up ice.
A Cornell D beats a Yale forward to the puck in the defensive zone and throws it up the boards without looking, not knowing that the only one there to receive the "pass" is a Yale D, who passes it to the open man on the far side.
These sorts of things happened dozens of times each period. Yale only needs to capitalize on a tiny percentage of these to win a game 6-0.
The difference is astonishing. Yale plays fantastic hockey: there is simply no getting around that. Can the Cornell coaching staff figure out how to counter this? Four years on and I'm still waiting.
Cornell just flat out doesn't have the talent anymore. No amount of coaching is going to make up for that much of a difference in skill. It was embarrassing to have how mediocre this team really is exposed so thoroughly and clearly.
The part that needs figuring out is why can't Cornell get these players? The talent is in the league. Yale can recruit these players. Union can recruit these players.
Maybe what the coaches will figure out is that no one wants to play for a "system" that stopped working 10 years ago---a defensive minded team that gives up dozens of odd man rushes a game but lacks the offensive capability once they're down a goal or two to come back.
And maybe they'll realize taking 5-minute majors every game, diving, and taking classless cheap shot penalties when down 6-0 are not things that are going to encourage players to want to play here.
Quote from: Kyle RoseThe coaching staff really needs to figure out how to play teams like Yale and Union, because it's clear they haven't yet got a clue.
E.g., a Yale player gets the puck and *immediately* passes it off to someone else: bam! bam! bam! the puck is up ice.
A Cornell player gets the puck and stands there dribbling it for a few seconds trying to figure out who to send it to.
A Yale D beats a Cornell forward to the puck in the defensive zone and pops it over to the center who is supporting the puck near the faceoff dot: bam! bam! bam! the puck is up ice.
A Cornell D beats a Yale forward to the puck in the defensive zone and throws it up the boards without looking, not knowing that the only one there to receive the "pass" is a Yale D, who passes it to the open man on the far side.
These sorts of things happened dozens of times each period. Yale only needs to capitalize on a tiny percentage of these to win a game 6-0.
The difference is astonishing. Yale plays fantastic hockey: there is simply no getting around that. Can the Cornell coaching staff figure out how to counter this? Four years on and I'm still waiting.
No doubt, the fast transition is probably Yale's biggest strength. Cornell has not yet figured out an effective strategy to counter that. Also for Yale, they have a lot of raw talent. Much of that talent will graduate this year (9 seniors). We'll see who steps up next year.
All rivalry aside, I hope Yale wins the NCAA tournament, for the sake of the conference.
Quote from: BigRedHockeyFanAll rivalry aside, I hope Yale wins the NCAA tournament, for the sake of the conference.
If the road to the Frozen Four runs through Air Force and Union/UMD as seems likely, they better at least get to the Frozen Four. The ECAC nightmare would be North Dakota 7 RPI 1; Air Force beating Yale (again) and UMD beating Union.
With the Bridgeport regional featuring the AHA team, the 4th place WCHA team and the top two ECAC teams (one of which is playing a short drive from campus), the ECAC is never going to have an easier path to getting a team through.
Our luck ran out Saturday. We got lucky the week before when Union collapsed against Colgate, shuffling the brackets so we got beatable Dartmouth Friday rather than unbeatable (for Cornell this year) Union. With Colgate's reversion to norm Friday in its 4-0 loss to Yale, our fate was cast.
It didn't matter who was in goal. If Garman's hot hand continued, maybe it would have been 4-0 not 6-0. If Miller had a trace more luck when he was camped on Rondeau's doorstep with the puck, it would've been a 4-1.
There were reasons to stick with Iles as the Saturday goalie. Other than the Florida tournament with Iles away, it was a rotation all season long. Garman's shutout and 37 saves Friday might have been the signal of an improved goalie but they could also be outlier performances that would revert to the norm. ("The Hot Hand Myth in Professional Basketball" ) http://www.mccombs.utexas.edu/faculty/jonathan.koehler/articles/2003_JSEP.pdf
I think it was worth protecting Iles psyche, too. We want him around for the next three years. Schafer probably didn't think this. I did: Sacrifice the battle to win a war. No matter who was in goal, this was going to be Cornell's last game of the season.
Good luck to Yale. There hasn't been an ECAC national champion since 1989 (Harvard) and no ECAC team in the title game since 1990 and Colgate (remember this for a trivia question). Some preliminary bracketology has Union joining Yale in the Bridgeport regional. The NCAA has not really placed a high priority on avoiding intra-conference second round (regional title game that advances the winner to the Frozen Four).
Bad as Saturday was against Yale, the Cornell-at-Union game (4-0 loss with Garman playing) was worse. In AC we had some chances and got off 22 shots. At Union, our shot total was something like 2-2-5--9 in that game. Plus, with 2226 in attendance at Messa Rink, there were more people watching the humiliation.
We got as far as our abilities allowed. The ECAC has four good, NCAA-tournament worthy teams this year: Yale and Union in a class by themselves (but possibly in a regional together, in Bridgeport), RPI (apparently going as a low seed), and maybe Dartmouth (apparently not going). We showed we could handle RPI and Dartmouth. So except for not winning against two of the ECAC's best teams since perhaps our 2003 club, this overachieving team did a lot with what it had.
I saw something like 6 losses and a win this year. It was still great. LGR next year.
Quote from: billhowardOur luck ran out Saturday. We got lucky the week before when Union collapsed against Colgate, shuffling the brackets so we got beatable Dartmouth Friday rather than unbeatable (for Cornell this year) Union. With Colgate's reversion to norm Friday in its 4-0 loss to Yale, our fate was cast.
Indeed. I called it last year, for which everyone gave me shit, but I stand by that statement with last night's performance being something as close to a proof as you're going to get in sports: the only reason Cornell won the ECAC championship last year was that a lesser Union team did Cornell's dirty work for it and took Yale out of the tournament.
Kyle
I more or less agree with your assessment. I was embarrassed by the punk major penalty in the 3rd. The game was for all intents and purposes over and that was simply gratuitous and did not reflect well on the Team, Coaches or School.
So, where do we go from here? The players we have, and the style of play are made in the coaches image.
Was this our worst loss in ECAC tournament history? Sure seemed like it - even worse than the 5-0 loss to Yale in 2009.
Quote from: Chris '03Quote from: ithacatQuote from: upprdecknot sure what to say.. a major leads to a goal... Andy gets pulled after 5 goals. every chance CU got that could lead to a goal I dont even think we got on net.. Yale played well and buried the chances which were too many..
this team needs a couple guys that make D's worry since I dont think we can come up with much speed in one off season
Need to have the top ECAC teams come back to the pack. Cornell's a couple of years away, at least -- just not enough speed and skill to compete at that level. 0 for 5 vs Yale and Union while out-scored 23-4 this season.
Not if it means the conference being even less competitive nationally. I'd rather not have the ECAC be a parity-filled league playing at an AHA level. Let's all hope Yale doesn't go one and done in their home regional again...
Agree. I was only making reference to Cornell's ability to catch Yale.
Quote from: TowerroadKyle
I more or less agree with your assessment. I was embarrassed by the punk major penalty in the 3rd. The game was for all intents and purposes over and that was simply gratuitous and did not reflect well on the Team, Coaches or school.
Not to put salt on old wounds, but shall the squabbling begin (http://elf.elynah.com/read.php?1,165757,165788,page=1#msg-165788)?
I think this is a conversation worth having with the coaching staff. Based on the adjustments they have made since the winter break, I know Schafer and Co. cares about improving the team and knows what our weaknesses are. However, what they've done in terms of improving the passing game and shuffling up the lines is like putting a band aid on a bullet wound. I was talking to some Yale fans before the Colgate game and they said a lot of their success has to do with the work ethic that their coaches and players have committed to in the past few years - nothing more special than that. So where do we go from here?
Maybe the coaches need to polish up our trophies just to remind themselves what Cornell hockey is all about. I seem to recall that tactic being used on the players a few years back.
Quote from: Wastherein70Maybe the coaches need to polish up our trophies just to remind themselves what Cornell hockey is all about. I seem to recall that tactic being used on the players a few years back.
Excuse me, we didn't go as far as we wanted, but we did get to the ECAC Finals the last 3 years, and won last year. I'm as concerned as anyone about moving ahead and competing with Yale and Union, but to imply that the coaches, 2 of whom are grads, don't understand what CU hockey is all about, well give me a break.
Remember Union hasn't won it yet, so they still have something to prove. Yale is doing well, and this should have been their year. Let's hope they can move on. And just so you know, I was also there in 70.
Agree, Jim. Having been there in 1970 is no excuse for being a whiner.
With all due respect, when's the last time BC won an NCAA championship? What about BU?
I don't appreciate snarky comments either if they are not productive. However, if we don't have national championship aspirations, the men's hockey team can move their stuff into the football team's locker room and we'll call it a day.
It's easy for people to get complacent after they've been doing the same job for a long time. Reminding oneself periodically about history and tradition is never a bad thing. And making that suggestion is hardly whining.
We won the ECAC last year and were a #2 seed in the NCAA's. We have a tremendous recruiting class coming in. We will be back! LGR!
This team, and others like it in recent years has only a few major flaws, that i can see.
First: passing. As Kyle pointed out, the lack of crisp tape to tape give and go passing is completely absent. Yale had it, we didn't.
Second: hesitation. You can't hesitate with the puck. you have to know what to do and do it in an instant- not second guess yourself into lost opportunities.
The 2003 team passed well and never hesitated- that's how they got as far as they did. Yeah, they had great goaltending, size and a core of role players, but so did the last 10 years of Cornell teams. Moving forward means 1000 hours of passing drills this summer.
I was not there in 1970, but am here in 2011. Last night was an embarrassment to Cornell hockey ...
Whatever the reason - be it lack of motivation, bad passing (good observation, The Rancor), undisciplined hockey, or, as I've said all along, Coach Schafer's entire system that has proven incapable of returning to championship hockey, I wholeheartedly believe that Cornell is need of a changing of the guard. I renew my campaign for a coaching change.
Quote from: The RancorThis team, and others like it in recent years has only a few major flaws, that i can see.
First: passing. As Kyle pointed out, the lack of crisp tape to tape give and go passing is completely absent. Yale had it, we didn't.
Second: hesitation. You can't hesitate with the puck. you have to know what to do and do it in an instant- not second guess yourself into lost opportunities.
The 2003 team passed well and never hesitated- that's how they got as far as they did. Yeah, they had great goaltending, size and a core of role players, but so did the last 10 years of Cornell teams. Moving forward means 1000 hours of passing drills this summer.
Thank you for some constructive comment. I totally agree with you, and it's so nice to see rather than the "Why aren't we national champs, get rid of the coach." lines.
This team was much different than those of the past. They definitely were a passing rather than clutch and grab. And I think you hit to correctly, their main fault was not keeping moving. Passes from a stationary man to another stationary man, will lead to turnovers. Our main breakout problem was when we sat behind the net, waiting. When you skate continuously with the puck, passes are much more successful.
But that takes a particular type of player and it takes practice with your teammates. You need to know their tendencies and everyone needs to know how they are supposed to react to a given circumstance. That way it almost becomes second nature, thereby being quick and accurate.
If the recruits pan out as we want, next year will be better, but we'll still be at least a year away from real success. Patience as a fan is the key. No one who watched the team throughout the season can really say this team played like the old ones. We are changing.
Having attended last night's debacle, we can talk about systems, style of play, whatever. Fact is Yale right now has far more talented players than we do. Hard to know why, but it seems we're bringing in some higher caliber classes than in the past few years (based on their relative performances in their Junior leagues), so maybe we can close the talent gap. Yale loses a lot this year, so we'll see.
While I would have liked to see Garman start last night, I understand while Iles got the nod. He was shaky from the get-go, but in the end it mattered little.
As far as the whole AC thing goes, the rink itself is quite a bit nicer than the TUC. But nothing else about the AC experience is an improvement over Albany, except that we were able to spend a few minutes watching the Ocean. Attendance was pitiful, and while we had the best presence, it suffered in comparison to Albany. Everything is more expensive in AC (except for the free parking at the Trump Plaza), and of course it is too far from the fan bases.
As frustrating as it was to watch the game, I couldn't help but marvel at the way Yale plays. If Yale can't make the Frozen Four this year, they may never do it.
Passing is a fundamental skill that can be improved with a little coaching. Starting Iles was a coaching decision. Lacking motivation is a coaching problem. Jim, I'm disappointed in your comments. I'd assume a booster like yourself would want what's best for the team. If they can't even be coached to make a good pass - how are they ever gonna be a successful program? Your blind support of Schafer is not constructive.
Oh, and last I checked, Yale was a member of the Ivy League. How is it that they can be a far superior team than Cornell and a serious contender for a national title without being able to offer scholarships? The answer is evident: Mike Schafer is not their coach.
Quote from: scoop85Having attended last night's debacle, we can talk about systems, style of play, whatever. Fact is Yale right now has far more talented players than we do.
This is completely beside the point. Even if it is true (which is not at all clear), the difference in talent is a small part of the problem. Harvard brings in scads of blue chippahs every year, and they still suck hairy donkey scrotum. The difference here is coaching and system: some of it you can forgive for Cornell being so young this year, but the things I pointed out earlier (which someone, I think Rancor, correctly phrased as a lack of tape-to-tape passing and too much hesitation) are a result of a failure in coaching,
not a lack of talent. A good transition game is a learned skill, not an instinct.
Unlike Facetimer, I'm not calling for Coach Schafer's head, but I would like to know what he's planning to do about something even he recognizes as a problem given his comments about Yale's superior transition game.
Quote from: Kyle RoseQuote from: scoop85Having attended last night's debacle, we can talk about systems, style of play, whatever. Fact is Yale right now has far more talented players than we do.
This is completely beside the point. Even if it is true (which is not at all clear), the difference in talent is a small part of the problem. Harvard brings in scads of blue chippahs every year, and they still suck hairy donkey scrotum. The difference here is coaching and system: some of it you can forgive for Cornell being so young this year, but the things I pointed out earlier (which someone, I think Rancor, correctly phrased as a lack of tape-to-tape passing and too much hesitation) are a result of a failure in coaching, not a lack of talent. A good transition game is a learned skill, not an instinct.
Unlike Facetimer, I'm not calling for Coach Schafer's head, but I would like to know what he's planning to do about something even he recognizes as a problem given his comments about Yale's superior transition game.
Kyle
Please stop insulting donkeys.
Since Nov of 07 our record against Yale is 1-8-1 and we have been outscored 15-36. They are clearly a better team and have proven it on the ice. Even if they do recruit better players they do so under the same restrictions and constraints we (and Union) do. Who is responsible for recruiting?
I can live with next year being another "rebuilding" year but in a sport with a fundamental 4 year cycle you cannot have 3 rebuilding years in a row. For that matter, I am not sure what we were rebuilding from. The 9-10 team was good but not great as you pointed out they won the ECAC's because Union did the dirty work for us and it was pretty much one and done in the NCAA's
Like you I am think the coach deserves the benefit of the doubt but there is substantial doubt. There is a whole lot of difference between knowing what is broken (I think we all know that) and knowing what to do about it.
Quote from: FacetimerPassing is a fundamental skill that can be improved with a little coaching. Starting Iles was a coaching decision. Lacking motivation is a coaching problem. Jim, I'm disappointed in your comments. I'd assume a booster like yourself would want what's best for the team. If they can't even be coached to make a good pass - how are they ever gonna be a successful program? Your blind support of Schafer is not constructive.
Oh, and last I checked, Yale was a member of the Ivy League. How is it that they can be a far superior team than Cornell and a serious contender for a national title without being able to offer scholarships? The answer is evident: Mike Schafer is not their coach.
and I don't? That's your problem, you think you know everything that's best, and the rest of us are wrong. However, your comments are mainly limited to fire Schafer. It was asked of you before, but who is available, and why is it that the rest of the ECAC isn't out getting them. Look, there is Yale and Union that we are having trouble with, as is most of the rest of the league. Compared to the rest of the league we're doing quite well. Ask a Harvard or Clarkson fan if they'd like our record.
That doesn't mean I don't want to do better, but I try to be objective. I try to talk about things that are happening, and what can happen, to make a better team. Just saying fire the coach doesn't make it with me, but then you already knew that.
Quote from: TowerroadQuote from: Kyle RoseQuote from: scoop85Having attended last night's debacle, we can talk about systems, style of play, whatever. Fact is Yale right now has far more talented players than we do.
This is completely beside the point. Even if it is true (which is not at all clear), the difference in talent is a small part of the problem. Harvard brings in scads of blue chippahs every year, and they still suck hairy donkey scrotum. The difference here is coaching and system: some of it you can forgive for Cornell being so young this year, but the things I pointed out earlier (which someone, I think Rancor, correctly phrased as a lack of tape-to-tape passing and too much hesitation) are a result of a failure in coaching, not a lack of talent. A good transition game is a learned skill, not an instinct.
Unlike Facetimer, I'm not calling for Coach Schafer's head, but I would like to know what he's planning to do about something even he recognizes as a problem given his comments about Yale's superior transition game.
Kyle
Please stop insulting donkeys.
Since Nov of 07 our record against Yale is 1-8-1 and we have been outscored 15-36. They are clearly a better team and have proven it on the ice. Even if they do recruit better players they do so under the same restrictions and constraints we (and Union) do. Who is responsible for recruiting?
I can live with next year being another "rebuilding" year but in a sport with a fundamental 4 year cycle you cannot have 3 rebuilding years in a row. For that matter, I am not sure what we were rebuilding from. The 9-10 team was good but not great as you pointed out they won the ECAC's because Union did the dirty work for us and it was pretty much one and done in the NCAA's
Like you I am think the coach deserves the benefit of the doubt but there is substantial doubt. There is a whole lot of difference between knowing what is broken (I think we all know that) and knowing what to do about it.
That's not been entirely true. I don't know what Union's policy is, but we have been seriously behind some other Ivys in regards to financial support. It has been such an important issue that the University took steps to try and correct it. I'm hoping that next years class may be a result of that. We'll see, but until now the playing field has not been even.
Quote from: Kyle RoseOur luck ran out Saturday. We got lucky the week before when Union collapsed against Colgate, shuffling the brackets so we got beatable Dartmouth Friday rather than unbeatable (for Cornell this year) Union. With Colgate's reversion to norm Friday in its 4-0 loss to Yale, our fate was cast.
Indeed. I called it last year, for which everyone gave me shit, but I stand by that statement with last night's performance being something as close to a proof as you're going to get in sports: the only reason Cornell won the ECAC championship last year was that a lesser Union team did Cornell's dirty work for it and took Yale out of the tournament.
Just to set the record straight, Brown upset Yale in the quarterfinals last season. Union didn't play Yale in last year's ECAC playoffs.
Quote from: Kyle RoseQuote from: scoop85Having attended last night's debacle, we can talk about systems, style of play, whatever. Fact is Yale right now has far more talented players than we do.
This is completely beside the point. Even if it is true (which is not at all clear), the difference in talent is a small part of the problem. Harvard brings in scads of blue chippahs every year, and they still suck hairy donkey scrotum. The difference here is coaching and system: some of it you can forgive for Cornell being so young this year, but the things I pointed out earlier (which someone, I think Rancor, correctly phrased as a lack of tape-to-tape passing and too much hesitation) are a result of a failure in coaching, not a lack of talent. A good transition game is a learned skill, not an instinct.
Unlike Facetimer, I'm not calling for Coach Schafer's head, but I would like to know what he's planning to do about something even he recognizes as a problem given his comments about Yale's superior transition game.
The systems put in place by the coaches and the player talent is intricately linked and the Cornell/Yale coaching staffs put in place systems that suit their teams.
Cornell does not play a tape-to-tape transition game through the neutral zone. Cornell uses tips and quick dump-ins through the neutral zone to get the puck deep below the goal line, executes puck retrieval (aka forechecking) and attempts to generate offense from the offensive zone cycle.
Yale plays a 2 out of the zone break-out transition game through the neutral zone that relies on the defense making tape-to-tape passes to the stretch forwards or the third forward through the neutral zone. This is the primary reason Yale "looks so fast." Their forwards essentially start first - transitioning to offense earlier. Yale generates offense from quick zone-entry shots. Also, Dartmouth's top line plays this system.
Cornell could not play Yale's system and Yale could not play Cornell's system. Yale is successful this year, because they have enough skill to execute the stretch plays (especially the third forward who is usually out-numbered 2-to-1 in the neutral zone) without leaving themselves susceptible to the counter-attack (see 9-7 loss to BC in NCAA quarterfinals last year).
Yale's system of play requires a much higher level of puck control and smart decision making on the part of the players. Cornell's system removes the decision making from the players and requires a physical presence to generate offense from the corners.
Schafer
attempted to counter the stretch system in two ways. First, a Cornell forward should be on one of the stretch forwards creating a 1-on-2 overload with the Cornell defender and forward against one of the stretch forwards. Second, a Cornell forward should be high-side on the third forward. This is designed to slow the transition through the neutral zone and force turnovers or force the stretch offense team to dump and chase. It worked against Dartmouth, it didn't against Yale. Why? Yale is more talented and could execute. This Yale team is the culmination of events starting with Keith Allain's hire in 2006 and his ability to recruit players that fit this stretch system.
Quote from: JDeafvQuote from: Kyle RoseQuote from: scoop85Having attended last night's debacle, we can talk about systems, style of play, whatever. Fact is Yale right now has far more talented players than we do.
This is completely beside the point. Even if it is true (which is not at all clear), the difference in talent is a small part of the problem. Harvard brings in scads of blue chippahs every year, and they still suck hairy donkey scrotum. The difference here is coaching and system: some of it you can forgive for Cornell being so young this year, but the things I pointed out earlier (which someone, I think Rancor, correctly phrased as a lack of tape-to-tape passing and too much hesitation) are a result of a failure in coaching, not a lack of talent. A good transition game is a learned skill, not an instinct.
Unlike Facetimer, I'm not calling for Coach Schafer's head, but I would like to know what he's planning to do about something even he recognizes as a problem given his comments about Yale's superior transition game.
The systems put in place by the coaches and the player talent is intricately linked and the Cornell/Yale coaching staffs put in place systems that suit their teams.
Cornell does not play a tape-to-tape transition game through the neutral zone. Cornell uses tips and quick dump-ins through the neutral zone to get the puck deep below the goal line, executes puck retrieval (aka forechecking) and attempts to generate offense from the offensive zone cycle.
Yale plays a 2 out of the zone break-out transition game through the neutral zone that relies on the defense making tape-to-tape passes to the stretch forwards or the third forward through the neutral zone. This is the primary reason Yale "looks so fast." Their forwards essentially start first - transitioning to offense earlier. Yale generates offense from quick zone-entry shots. Also, Dartmouth's top line plays this system.
Cornell could not play Yale's system and Yale could not play Cornell's system. Yale is successful this year, because they have enough skill to execute the stretch plays (especially the third forward who is usually out-numbered 2-to-1 in the neutral zone) without leaving themselves susceptible to the counter-attack (see 9-7 loss to BC in NCAA quarterfinals last year).
Yale's system of play requires a much higher level of puck control and smart decision making on the part of the players. Cornell's system removes the decision making from the players and requires a physical presence to generate offense from the corners.
Schafer attempted to counter the stretch system in two ways. First, a Cornell forward should be on one of the stretch forwards creating a 1-on-2 overload with the Cornell defender and forward against one of the stretch forwards. Second, a Cornell forward should be high-side on the third forward. This is designed to slow the transition through the neutral zone and force turnovers or force the stretch offense team to dump and chase. It worked against Dartmouth, it didn't against Yale. Why? Yale is more talented and could execute. This Yale team is the culmination of events starting with Keith Allain's hire in 2006 and his ability to recruit players that fit this stretch system.
Agreed, there is nothing wrong with the system that we played last night and it isn't inherent in the system that we can't be incredibly successful. What makes or breaks a system is the players you put in the system. A player like Hudon should come in and make the system far more effective, Furthermore, as players like D'Agostino and Gotovets reach their senior year we should see a lot from their classes. As I read recently we didnt get a lot of the players we wanted in this class. I'm from Philly so I'm used to watching a big strong team with talented (but big) players play a system similar to Schafer's. It worked great until the rules changed, and even then we didn't completely abandon the system, we just adapted our roster to the new rules. Now we kinda play a hybrid. Point is there is nothing wrong with a puck possession system. And if you need more convincing watch this. The Shift (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vt3c56MAqw4). It is proof that our system can be dominant with the right talent.
Quote from: css228Quote from: JDeafvQuote from: Kyle RoseQuote from: scoop85Having attended last night's debacle, we can talk about systems, style of play, whatever. Fact is Yale right now has far more talented players than we do.
This is completely beside the point. Even if it is true (which is not at all clear), the difference in talent is a small part of the problem. Harvard brings in scads of blue chippahs every year, and they still suck hairy donkey scrotum. The difference here is coaching and system: some of it you can forgive for Cornell being so young this year, but the things I pointed out earlier (which someone, I think Rancor, correctly phrased as a lack of tape-to-tape passing and too much hesitation) are a result of a failure in coaching, not a lack of talent. A good transition game is a learned skill, not an instinct.
Unlike Facetimer, I'm not calling for Coach Schafer's head, but I would like to know what he's planning to do about something even he recognizes as a problem given his comments about Yale's superior transition game.
The systems put in place by the coaches and the player talent is intricately linked and the Cornell/Yale coaching staffs put in place systems that suit their teams.
Cornell does not play a tape-to-tape transition game through the neutral zone. Cornell uses tips and quick dump-ins through the neutral zone to get the puck deep below the goal line, executes puck retrieval (aka forechecking) and attempts to generate offense from the offensive zone cycle.
Yale plays a 2 out of the zone break-out transition game through the neutral zone that relies on the defense making tape-to-tape passes to the stretch forwards or the third forward through the neutral zone. This is the primary reason Yale "looks so fast." Their forwards essentially start first - transitioning to offense earlier. Yale generates offense from quick zone-entry shots. Also, Dartmouth's top line plays this system.
Cornell could not play Yale's system and Yale could not play Cornell's system. Yale is successful this year, because they have enough skill to execute the stretch plays (especially the third forward who is usually out-numbered 2-to-1 in the neutral zone) without leaving themselves susceptible to the counter-attack (see 9-7 loss to BC in NCAA quarterfinals last year).
Yale's system of play requires a much higher level of puck control and smart decision making on the part of the players. Cornell's system removes the decision making from the players and requires a physical presence to generate offense from the corners.
Schafer attempted to counter the stretch system in two ways. First, a Cornell forward should be on one of the stretch forwards creating a 1-on-2 overload with the Cornell defender and forward against one of the stretch forwards. Second, a Cornell forward should be high-side on the third forward. This is designed to slow the transition through the neutral zone and force turnovers or force the stretch offense team to dump and chase. It worked against Dartmouth, it didn't against Yale. Why? Yale is more talented and could execute. This Yale team is the culmination of events starting with Keith Allain's hire in 2006 and his ability to recruit players that fit this stretch system.
Agreed, there is nothing wrong with the system that we played last night and it isn't inherent in the system that we can't be incredibly successful. What makes or breaks a system is the players you put in the system. A player like Hudon should come in and make the system far more effective, Furthermore, as players like D'Agostino and Gotovets reach their senior year we should see a lot from their classes. As I read recently we didnt get a lot of the players we wanted in this class. I'm from Philly so I'm used to watching a big strong team with talented (but big) players play a system similar to Schafer's. It worked great until the rules changed, and even then we didn't completely abandon the system, we just adapted our roster to the new rules. Now we kinda play a hybrid. Point is there is nothing wrong with a puck possession system. And if you need more convincing watch this. The Shift (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vt3c56MAqw4). It is proof that our system can be dominant with the right talent.
Three minutes of great hockey does not a system make. No, Cornell could not play Yale's system and Yale would not want to play Cornell's system after all they have beaten the snot out of us for the last 4 years. If your contention is that we have not recruited the right players who's responsibility is that? It is certainly not the responsibility of the players.
Quote from: Wastherein70It's easy for people to get complacent after they've been doing the same job for a long time. Reminding oneself periodically about history and tradition is never a bad thing. And making that suggestion is hardly whining.
If you think Mike Schafer needs to "remind [him]self periodically about [Cornell hockey's] history and tradition" you are, quite simply, clueless.
Well, can we recruit the players we need? From what I understand, the big talented players that fits our system are mostly going out west to schools like UND, and we cannot compete on that level due to a lot of factors that have already been discussed multiple times on eLynah.
Keith Allain's recruiting and execution strategy definitely fits well for the Ivies because most of their players are not the huge pre-NHL draft picks that other top schools recruit, and they still dance circles around them. The Yale fans I talked to said most of their players do not plan to play hockey professionally after school (some will perhaps play AHL), and their profile fits perfectly into the student-athlete model that the Ivy League tries to endorse.
So maybe the solution isn't fighting the market forces and trying to recruit the right players for our system. Maybe, the solution is changing the system into something that will fit the players we can recruit. I'm not calling for Schafer's resignations right now, but if he cannot make some fundamental changes in the upcoming months/year, we'll probably watch the same style of hockey for the next decade or so. There might be another amazing 2003 season down the road, but those will be very few and between. For the dedication and resources we have as a fan base and school, we should produce better results than what we have right now.
Quote from: TowerroadQuote from: css228Quote from: JDeafvQuote from: Kyle RoseQuote from: scoop85Having attended last night's debacle, we can talk about systems, style of play, whatever. Fact is Yale right now has far more talented players than we do.
This is completely beside the point. Even if it is true (which is not at all clear), the difference in talent is a small part of the problem. Harvard brings in scads of blue chippahs every year, and they still suck hairy donkey scrotum. The difference here is coaching and system: some of it you can forgive for Cornell being so young this year, but the things I pointed out earlier (which someone, I think Rancor, correctly phrased as a lack of tape-to-tape passing and too much hesitation) are a result of a failure in coaching, not a lack of talent. A good transition game is a learned skill, not an instinct.
Unlike Facetimer, I'm not calling for Coach Schafer's head, but I would like to know what he's planning to do about something even he recognizes as a problem given his comments about Yale's superior transition game.
The systems put in place by the coaches and the player talent is intricately linked and the Cornell/Yale coaching staffs put in place systems that suit their teams.
Cornell does not play a tape-to-tape transition game through the neutral zone. Cornell uses tips and quick dump-ins through the neutral zone to get the puck deep below the goal line, executes puck retrieval (aka forechecking) and attempts to generate offense from the offensive zone cycle.
Yale plays a 2 out of the zone break-out transition game through the neutral zone that relies on the defense making tape-to-tape passes to the stretch forwards or the third forward through the neutral zone. This is the primary reason Yale "looks so fast." Their forwards essentially start first - transitioning to offense earlier. Yale generates offense from quick zone-entry shots. Also, Dartmouth's top line plays this system.
Cornell could not play Yale's system and Yale could not play Cornell's system. Yale is successful this year, because they have enough skill to execute the stretch plays (especially the third forward who is usually out-numbered 2-to-1 in the neutral zone) without leaving themselves susceptible to the counter-attack (see 9-7 loss to BC in NCAA quarterfinals last year).
Yale's system of play requires a much higher level of puck control and smart decision making on the part of the players. Cornell's system removes the decision making from the players and requires a physical presence to generate offense from the corners.
Schafer attempted to counter the stretch system in two ways. First, a Cornell forward should be on one of the stretch forwards creating a 1-on-2 overload with the Cornell defender and forward against one of the stretch forwards. Second, a Cornell forward should be high-side on the third forward. This is designed to slow the transition through the neutral zone and force turnovers or force the stretch offense team to dump and chase. It worked against Dartmouth, it didn't against Yale. Why? Yale is more talented and could execute. This Yale team is the culmination of events starting with Keith Allain's hire in 2006 and his ability to recruit players that fit this stretch system.
Agreed, there is nothing wrong with the system that we played last night and it isn't inherent in the system that we can't be incredibly successful. What makes or breaks a system is the players you put in the system. A player like Hudon should come in and make the system far more effective, Furthermore, as players like D'Agostino and Gotovets reach their senior year we should see a lot from their classes. As I read recently we didnt get a lot of the players we wanted in this class. I'm from Philly so I'm used to watching a big strong team with talented (but big) players play a system similar to Schafer's. It worked great until the rules changed, and even then we didn't completely abandon the system, we just adapted our roster to the new rules. Now we kinda play a hybrid. Point is there is nothing wrong with a puck possession system. And if you need more convincing watch this. The Shift (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vt3c56MAqw4). It is proof that our system can be dominant with the right talent.
Three minutes of great hockey does not a system make. No, Cornell could not play Yale's system and Yale would not want to play Cornell's system after all they have beaten the snot out of us for the last 4 years. If your contention is that we have not recruited the right players who's responsibility is that? It is certainly not the responsibility of the players.
Every once in a while you're going to have down years. North Carolina didn't even make the NCAA tournament last year, but does that mean their secondary break doesn't work. Puck possession and offensive zone cycling is a tried and proven system. It definitely works. That's an example of how successful the system can be when properly executed. On Saturday, we did not execute. I don't think anyone can deny that we haven't always gotten the players we've wanted recently (a lot decommitted if I remember, which means you can't entirely blame the coach for not having replacements of the same quality). However, with guys like Brisson, Iles, D'Agostino, Gotovets and others coming in in recent years, and guys like Hudon, Ryan, Miller, Dias, Bardaeu, MacDonald, and eventually Sade, should only help to allow us to continue to grow and get closer to where we have been. Look I'm glad no one's content with a year like this. But in my opinion, I think we're moving forward and seem to be laying the foundations for long term success with our recent recruiting, and hopefully a Frozen Four or a title is around the bend.
Quote from: ajh258Well, can we recruit the players we need? From what I understand, the big talented players that fits our system are mostly going out west to schools like UND, and we cannot compete on that level due to a lot of factors that have already been discussed multiple times on eLynah.
Keith Allain's recruiting and execution strategy definitely fits well for the Ivies because most of their players are not the huge pre-NHL draft picks that other top schools recruit, and they still dance circles around them. The Yale fans I talked to said most of their players do not plan to play hockey professionally after school (some will perhaps play AHL), and their profile fits perfectly into the student-athlete model that the Ivy League tries to endorse.
So maybe the solution isn't fighting the market forces and trying to recruit the right players for our system. Maybe, the solution is changing the system into something that will fit the players we can recruit. I'm not calling for Schafer's resignations right now, but if he cannot make some fundamental changes in the upcoming months/year, we'll probably watch the same style of hockey for the next decade or so. There might be another amazing 2003 season down the road, but those will be very few and between. For the dedication and resources we have as a fan base and school, we should produce better results than what we have right now.
If this isn't the right system then I'm not sure Schafer is the right coach. I'd rather take a shot at trying to get more guys like Hudon's and Moulson's and Murray's at the moment then trying to switch our coach. Schafer is a great coach, potentially the best we've had since Harkness. But is he a transition hockey coach? I'm not sure.
Quote from: Al DeFlorioQuote from: Wastherein70It's easy for people to get complacent after they've been doing the same job for a long time. Reminding oneself periodically about history and tradition is never a bad thing. And making that suggestion is hardly whining.
If you think Mike Schafer needs to "remind [him]self periodically about [Cornell hockey's] history and tradition" you are, quite simply, clueless.
Pointless, snippy reply.
Really Al, you need to come up with something more than ad hominem one-liners. Spend the time to post something insightful or don't bother posting at all. (Edit: What I mean is I've been reading your posts for a decade and know you can do better than this.)
Quote from: css228Quote from: ajh258Well, can we recruit the players we need? From what I understand, the big talented players that fits our system are mostly going out west to schools like UND, and we cannot compete on that level due to a lot of factors that have already been discussed multiple times on eLynah.
Keith Allain's recruiting and execution strategy definitely fits well for the Ivies because most of their players are not the huge pre-NHL draft picks that other top schools recruit, and they still dance circles around them. The Yale fans I talked to said most of their players do not plan to play hockey professionally after school (some will perhaps play AHL), and their profile fits perfectly into the student-athlete model that the Ivy League tries to endorse.
So maybe the solution isn't fighting the market forces and trying to recruit the right players for our system. Maybe, the solution is changing the system into something that will fit the players we can recruit. I'm not calling for Schafer's resignations right now, but if he cannot make some fundamental changes in the upcoming months/year, we'll probably watch the same style of hockey for the next decade or so. There might be another amazing 2003 season down the road, but those will be very few and between. For the dedication and resources we have as a fan base and school, we should produce better results than what we have right now.
If this isn't the right system then I'm not sure Schafer is the right coach. I'd rather take a shot at trying to get more guys like Hudon's and Moulson's and Murray's at the moment then trying to switch our coach. Schafer is a great coach, potentially the best we've had since Harkness. But is he a transition hockey coach? I'm not sure.
In my opinion, he is the best coach we've had since Harkness, but that might be because we haven't had
great coaches since then. The word "great" is somewhat subjective and I don't want to go into a conversation comparing different coaches because that's not the main point.
The fact is, Schafer has been here since the summer of 1995 and his track record has been good, but not great. Take out the 96-97 seasons, which he couldn't have recruited most of the players for, and let's look at the results for the past 14 years:
3 ECAC championships
6 NCAA appearances
1 Frozen Four appearances
Now let's look at Allain for the past 6 (and these are achieved with his original recruitment class, who have been graduating in the past 3 years):
2 ECAC championships
3 NCAA appearances
very-likely 1st Frozen Four coming up
We'll see how well Allain can match up in the next few years, but it looks like he's found a system that works and will be sticking to it in the near future. And oh ya, we haven't beaten them in the past three seasons either.
It's good that we all have such high expectations for the program. 2009-10 was generally a good year. We finished 2nd in the ECAC regular season, 1 point behind Yale. We won the ECAC tourney and were a 2 seed in the NCAAs. After losing an outstanding senior class and Riley Nash to the pros after his junior year, we tied for 4th in the conference and lost in the ECAC finals. We have what I've heard described as the best class in Schafer's tenure coming in. Help is on the way. No one wants to win more than Schafer, and I am confident in his leadership.
Not sure why anyone would not credit Schafer with the 1996 and 1997 ECAC championships. Yes he didn't recruit those players. However, the prior coach suffered thru 3 consecutive losing seasons with these very players.
Quote from: CASNot sure why anyone would not credit Schafer with the 1996 and 1997 ECAC championships. Yes he didn't recruit those players. However, the prior coach suffered thru 3 consecutive losing seasons with these very players.
Then let's compare the last 6 years. It looks worse.
Quote from: CASNot sure why anyone would not credit Schafer with the 1996 and 1997 ECAC championships. Yes he didn't recruit those players. However, the prior coach suffered thru 3 consecutive losing seasons with these very players.
Agree 100%. If anything it's a testament to Schafer that he pulled championships out of a hat his first two years. It's not like he inherited a team that was wiping the floor with the competition and fell into two championships.
Quote from: Al DeFlorioQuote from: Wastherein70It's easy for people to get complacent after they've been doing the same job for a long time. Reminding oneself periodically about history and tradition is never a bad thing. And making that suggestion is hardly whining.
If you think Mike Schafer needs to "remind [him]self periodically about [Cornell hockey's] history and tradition" you are, quite simply, clueless.
We don't know each other, Al, so I can't really begin to tell you how little your opinion of my opinions means to me. I'm a Cornell grad who has been a season ticket holder for Schafer's entire tenure, attending something like 250 games. Just because I haven't chosen to contribute to this forum previously doesn't make me clueless any more than your continuous postings make you a sage. Name calling just makes you another internet tough guy, not a hockey guru.
I do think in recent years Cornell has lost some recruits to other Ivies which have had more generous financial aid policies. However, and most importantly, this has now changed. We are currently matching the financial aid awards of other Ivies. Again, we have some outstanding players coming who I can't wait to see at Lynah.
Quote from: ajh258Quote from: CASNot sure why anyone would not credit Schafer with the 1996 and 1997 ECAC championships. Yes he didn't recruit those players. However, the prior coach suffered thru 3 consecutive losing seasons with these very players.
Then let's compare the last 6 years. It looks worse.
Really?
2006: Cornell finishes 3rd RS, 2nd Playoffs, upsets CC in NCAAs before falling in 3ots to National Champion. Yale places 11th, beats Union, who still never won a playoff game (including a 5ot thriller), wiped out by Dartmouth in round 2. Goes home.
2007: Cornell RS 4th. Upset by #5 QU. Goes Home. Yale finishes 10th. Loses in first round. Goes home.
2008: Cornell RS 5th. Beats Dartmouth and Union. Loses in ECAC Semi to Harvard. Yale finished 7th. Loses at Princeton in ECAC quarters.
2009: Cornell RS 2nd. Loses to Yale in ECAC final. Upsets Northeastern, loses to Bemidji. Goes home. Yale 1st/1st. Upset by UVM in NCAAs.
2010: Cornell RS 2nd, 1st in playoffs. Upset by UNH in NCAAs. Yale RS 1/Upset by Brown in quarters. Beats NoDak, loses to BC in NCAAs.
2011: Cornell RS 4th, Playoffs 2nd. Goes home. Yale RS 2, playoffs 1, NCAA fate TBD.
2006: Edge CU
2007: Edge CU
2008: Edge CU
2009: Pick 'em. Depends on what you measure success by.
2010: Pick 'em.
2011: Edge Yale.
Cornell has finished no worse than 5th. Has a 2-3 NCAA record and 1 ECAC title.
Yale has finished 1 through 11, has 2 ECAC titles, and a 1-2 NCAA record so far.
Quote from: Chris '03Quote from: CASNot sure why anyone would not credit Schafer with the 1996 and 1997 ECAC championships. Yes he didn't recruit those players. However, the prior coach suffered thru 3 consecutive losing seasons with these very players.
Agree 100%. If anything it's a testament to Schafer that he pulled championships out of a hat his first two years. It's not like he inherited a team that was wiping the floor with the competition and fell into two championships.
Past performance is not indicative of future results.
I don't think anyone (except maybe Facetimer) is contending that Coach Schafer didn't return the Cornell program to glory, or that his winning seasons were somehow flukes or really Brian McCutcheon's doing. But it's clear that the top of the ECAC has changed and Cornell has not been able to match that change. If this were still year 1 or 2 of Yale's dominance over Cornell, that would be one thing; but this is the end of year 4, and things haven't improved in any substantial way over time: Cornell still appears utterly unable to cope with the Yale attack, quickly falls behind, and has no hope of coming back.
As a final point to address something disturbing I've read in several posts, hoping that Yale will lose enough top players to make Cornell competitive again does nothing to address the structural deficits in Cornell's system that will prevent it from being competitive nationally against similar teams from other conferences. That, and winning the ECAC without having solved the Yale riddle (like Cornell did last year) is laaaaaaaame and utterly unsatisfying.
Quote from: ajh258Well, can we recruit the players we need? From what I understand, the big talented players that fits our system are mostly going out west to schools like UND, and we cannot compete on that level due to a lot of factors that have already been discussed multiple times on eLynah.
Keith Allain's recruiting and execution strategy definitely fits well for the Ivies because most of their players are not the huge pre-NHL draft picks that other top schools recruit, and they still dance circles around them. The Yale fans I talked to said most of their players do not plan to play hockey professionally after school (some will perhaps play AHL), and their profile fits perfectly into the student-athlete model that the Ivy League tries to endorse.
So maybe the solution isn't fighting the market forces and trying to recruit the right players for our system. Maybe, the solution is changing the system into something that will fit the players we can recruit. I'm not calling for Schafer's resignations right now, but if he cannot make some fundamental changes in the upcoming months/year, we'll probably watch the same style of hockey for the next decade or so. There might be another amazing 2003 season down the road, but those will be very few and between. For the dedication and resources we have as a fan base and school, we should produce better results than what we have right now.
Yes, Cornell can recruit big talented players for that style of play and they have in the past with players like Greening, Bitz and Nash. It's difficult to get high quality and quantity commitments every year, because of playing time. Established players get more playing time - this could be why Yale has only 4 freshman on their roster this year - and only 2 have seen significant ice.
Allain's system requires players to develop and grow into good college hockey players to maintain the speed and intensity required to execute the stretch plays - which is why 10 of the top 13 scorers (those with 10+ points) on Yale are juniors and seniors. Leading scorer and sophomore Andrew Miller is the notable exception.
Just watched that clip of "The Shift" for the first time in a while.
Notice how much the Cornell players were hustling to pucks along the boards. Last night, especially in the defensive end, this kind of effort was not present. Some times, all it would have taken was one D-man hustling to a puck, then two sharp passes, and we'd be back in the neutral zone. Instead, it was Yale dancing around with the puck and making a nifty pass or two to set up a scoring opportunity.
Also, SOG at that point were Cornell 40, UNH 17. A different team.
Quote from: JDeafvYes, Cornell can recruit big talented players for that style of play and they have in the past with players like Greening, Bitz and Nash. It's difficult to get high quality and quantity commitments every year, because of playing time. Established players get more playing time - this could be why Yale has only 4 freshman on their roster this year - and only 2 have seen significant ice.
They are good, but my point was that they are not talented enough to use this system to reach success on a national level. Nash/Greening are few in between - we got lucky and everyone knows it. Allain doesn't need draft picks to reach where he is. I'm sure he will have a much easier time to recruit players this summer than we will.
Quote from: JDeafvAllain's system requires players to develop and grow into good college hockey players to maintain the speed and intensity required to execute the stretch plays - which is why 10 of the top 13 scorers (those with 10+ points) on Yale are juniors and seniors. Leading scorer and sophomore Andrew Miller is the notable exception.
Seniors and juniors should score more, and the breakdown for their top 13 scorers looks good:
5 seniors
4 juniors
3 sophomores
1 freshman
Plus, isn't the point of college hockey to allow players develop and grow? Are we expecting our freshman to come in and become superstars?
Quote from: Chris '032006: Edge CU
2007: Edge CU
2008: Edge CU
2009: Pick 'em. Depends on what you measure success by.
2010: Pick 'em.
2011: Edge Yale.
Cornell has finished no worse than 5th. Has a 2-3 NCAA record and 1 ECAC title.
Yale has finished 1 through 11, has 2 ECAC titles, and a 1-2 NCAA record so far.
So what do we see here? A declining trend for us and a rising trend for them. That NCAA record could easily improve in the next few weeks, and finishing 10th and 11th in a coach's first two years is nothing to be ashamed about. With the exception of the UNH game, I don't think I've seen a strong dominant win against an out-of-conference opponent in a long time.
Quote from: ebilmesJust watched that clip of "The Shift" for the first time in a while.
Notice how much the Cornell players were hustling to pucks along the boards. Last night, especially in the defensive end, this kind of effort was not present. Some times, all it would have taken was one D-man hustling to a puck, then two sharp passes, and we'd be back in the neutral zone. Instead, it was Yale dancing around with the puck and making a nifty pass or two to set up a scoring opportunity.
Also, SOG at that point were Cornell 40, UNH 17. A different team.
My point is we can have that kinda of talent coming in the next few years and be back to national relevance fast. Hudon, Ryan and Dias, coupled with guys like Iles, Brisson, D'Agostino and Gotovets who are already here can really make a difference towards being that type of team we had in '03 again
Quote from: ebilmesJust watched that clip of "The Shift" for the first time in a while.
Notice how much the Cornell players were hustling to pucks along the boards. Last night, especially in the defensive end, this kind of effort was not present. Some times, all it would have taken was one D-man hustling to a puck, then two sharp passes, and we'd be back in the neutral zone. Instead, it was Yale dancing around with the puck and making a nifty pass or two to set up a scoring opportunity.
Also, SOG at that point were Cornell 40, UNH 17. A different team.
"The Shift" was 3 min of amazing hockey if you are a Cornell fan but it might look different if you were the UNH coach, more like a complete defensive break down. I don't think we should talk about the UNH game out of context. That context includes:
1. This was UNH's first game in over 3 weeks. Cornell had played 2 games less than a week earlier. It may be possible that "rink rust" and turkey were a factor.
2. Within a year we met UNH 2 more times and they pretty much had their way with us beating us 2-6 and 4-7.
So, while enjoyable, I don't think pointing to the best 3 min of hockey we played in 2 years and saying "See, the system works." is credible, the other team has something to say about that. In short, this has not been a reproducible result. If it were we would not be having this discussion.
Quote from: ebilmesJust watched that clip of "The Shift" for the first time in a while.
Notice how much the Cornell players were hustling to pucks along the boards. Last night, especially in the defensive end, this kind of effort was not present. Some times, all it would have taken was one D-man hustling to a puck, then two sharp passes, and we'd be back in the neutral zone. Instead, it was Yale dancing around with the puck and making a nifty pass or two to set up a scoring opportunity.
Also, SOG at that point were Cornell 40, UNH 17. A different team.
Yeah, but we're only one year removed from that team, which seems to undercut the claims being made on this thread that we're in an absolute state of decline. That being said, it is perplexing that we've been so uncompetitive against Yale. Many teams that we beat this year (RPI, St. Lawrence, even Colgate) managed to either beat Yale or at least play them competitively. Other than the game at Lynah where we almost tied it up in the 3rd period, we haven't really been in a game with them of late. Clearly their system appears to completely leave us in the dark.
Quote from: scoop85Yeah, but we're only one year removed from that team, which seems to undercut the claims being made on this thread that we're in an absolute state of decline.
Three minutes of hockey against a team that looked like it was playing with a hangover
1 is what engineers laughingly refer to as "proof by example". How dominant was that team last year? They were good, but hardly 2003 level... and they still couldn't beat Yale, nor could they muster the effort to get out of the first round of the NCAAs.
QuoteThat being said, it is perplexing that we've been so uncompetitive against Yale. Many teams that we beat this year (RPI, St. Lawrence, even Colgate) managed to either beat Yale or at least play them competitively. Other than the game at Lynah where we almost tied it up in the 3rd period, we haven't really been in a game with them of late. Clearly their system appears to completely leave us in the dark.
I recall comments from Allain that lead me to think his system was designed
specifically to beat Cornell. If I find a reference to them, I will post them here.
1Really, what Scali did was amusing, but I find it hard to believe opponents would regularly let that happen: that sort of thing makes one prime target for a hit)
Quote from: css228As I read recently we didnt get a lot of the players we wanted in this class.
Where did you read that? I'm not challenging you, I'm curious. The only thing I have read indicating we didn't get certain players was that a couple guys appear to have used us as a bargaining chip to get Major Junior deals.
Quote from: JDeafvThe systems put in place by the coaches and the player talent is intricately linked and the Cornell/Yale coaching staffs put in place systems that suit their teams.
Cornell does not play a tape-to-tape transition game through the neutral zone. Cornell uses tips and quick dump-ins through the neutral zone to get the puck deep below the goal line, executes puck retrieval (aka forechecking) and attempts to generate offense from the offensive zone cycle.
Yale plays a 2 out of the zone break-out transition game through the neutral zone that relies on the defense making tape-to-tape passes to the stretch forwards or the third forward through the neutral zone. This is the primary reason Yale "looks so fast." Their forwards essentially start first - transitioning to offense earlier. Yale generates offense from quick zone-entry shots. Also, Dartmouth's top line plays this system.
Cornell could not play Yale's system and Yale could not play Cornell's system. Yale is successful this year, because they have enough skill to execute the stretch plays (especially the third forward who is usually out-numbered 2-to-1 in the neutral zone) without leaving themselves susceptible to the counter-attack (see 9-7 loss to BC in NCAA quarterfinals last year).
Yale's system of play requires a much higher level of puck control and smart decision making on the part of the players. Cornell's system removes the decision making from the players and requires a physical presence to generate offense from the corners.
Schafer attempted to counter the stretch system in two ways. First, a Cornell forward should be on one of the stretch forwards creating a 1-on-2 overload with the Cornell defender and forward against one of the stretch forwards. Second, a Cornell forward should be high-side on the third forward. This is designed to slow the transition through the neutral zone and force turnovers or force the stretch offense team to dump and chase. It worked against Dartmouth, it didn't against Yale. Why? Yale is more talented and could execute. This Yale team is the culmination of events starting with Keith Allain's hire in 2006 and his ability to recruit players that fit this stretch system.
The great thing about eLynah is if we wait long enough even a thread this inane will turn up one intelligent post. Thank you.
You guys are really way too picky I feel.
Look, It's unreasonable to expect excellence every year. This was a down year and everyone knew it - yet we still managed to come in 4th and play in the finals. Over Schafer's career, I'll take Cornell's record over anyone in the ECAC. He's allowed a few years of weak play (If that's what you can call this year) before I start calling for his head.
As far as Yale goes, I only have two comments: 1) They don't have the same restrictions as Cornell. Their financial aid is second only to Princeton. That, without question, hurts us. 2) I'd like to see them stay at the top for more than the two years that they've been there before I declare them a perennial power. Ditto with Union.
Quote from: kaelistusI'd like to see them stay at the top for more than the two years that they've been there before I declare them a perennial power. Ditto with Union.
To be fair, Yale has been great for three years. However, they have a problem:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yale | Overall - 34 GP (27- 6- 1 .809) | Conf Only - 22 GP (17- 4- 1 .795) | Career
------------------------------------|-------------------------------------|-------------------------------------|----------------
## Player POS YR | GP G A PTS PEN/MIN PP SH GW GT | GP G A PTS PEN/MIN PP SH GW GT | GP G A PTS
17 Andrew Miller F SO | 34 12 33 45 9/ 18 4 2 4 0 | 22 9 18 27 6/ 12 4 2 2 0 | 68 17 62 79
9 Brian O'Neill F JR | 34 18 26 44 11/ 22 9 0 3 0 | 22 12 13 25 5/ 10 6 0 2 0 | 101 46 69 115
[color=#FF0000][b]14 Broc Little F SR | 34 18 22 40 9/ 26 7 1 2 0 | 22 8 9 17 4/ 8 3 0 2 0 | 129 71 68 139
19 Denny Kearney F SR | 34 15 24 39 10/ 20 3 1 1 0 | 22 6 8 14 6/ 12 2 1 0 0 | 136 44 85 129
24 Chris Cahill F SR | 33 15 19 34 20/ 62 5 1 4 0 | 21 9 14 23 10/ 23 3 1 2 0 | 124 31 44 75[/b][/color]
18 Kenny Agostino (PIT) F FR | 29 11 14 25 15/ 30 4 0 1 0 | 20 7 9 16 7/ 14 3 0 1 0 | 29 11 14 25
[color=#FF0000][b]2 Jimmy Martin D SR | 34 7 15 22 16/ 32 4 0 1 0 | 22 3 7 10 12/ 24 1 0 1 0 | 136 11 46 57[/b][/color]
10 Kevin Limbert F JR | 34 10 10 20 8/ 16 2 1 2 0 | 22 3 5 8 5/ 10 0 1 1 0 | 100 20 23 43
59 Chad Ziegler F JR | 34 7 7 14 6/ 12 3 0 2 0 | 22 4 5 9 6/ 12 2 0 1 0 | 78 10 11 21
23 Kevin Peel D JR | 34 4 10 14 10/ 20 2 0 0 0 | 22 2 7 9 5/ 10 1 0 0 0 | 90 11 26 37
[color=#FF0000][b]7 Mike Matczak D SR | 34 2 12 14 7/ 22 0 0 1 0 | 22 1 9 10 3/ 14 0 0 1 0 | 112 8 31 39[/b][/color]
28 Antoine Laganiere F SO | 23 5 8 13 5/ 10 0 0 1 0 | 16 3 6 9 3/ 6 0 0 1 0 | 48 12 11 23
[color=#FF0000][b]22 Brendan Mason F SR | 30 4 9 13 11/ 30 1 0 1 0 | 21 4 6 10 9/ 26 1 0 1 0 | 127 19 24 43[/b][/color]
11 Charles Brockett F JR | 29 3 6 9 15/ 38 0 1 0 0 | 18 2 4 6 6/ 12 0 1 0 0 | 90 3 13 16
21 Colin Dueck D SO | 33 1 8 9 13/ 26 0 0 0 0 | 21 0 6 6 9/ 18 0 0 0 0 | 51 1 9 10
20 Jesse Root F FR | 25 2 6 8 7/ 14 0 0 0 0 | 17 2 3 5 5/ 10 0 0 0 0 | 25 2 6 8
8 Josh Balch F SO | 11 3 4 7 1/ 2 0 0 2 0 | 7 2 2 4 1/ 2 0 0 1 0 | 33 5 8 13
5 Nick Jaskowiak D JR | 32 1 5 6 13/ 37 0 0 0 0 | 21 1 3 4 11/ 33 0 0 0 0 | 82 3 13 16
[color=#FF0000][b][b]44 Jeff Anderson F SR | 11 3 2 5 7/ 22 2 0 0 0 | 6 3 0 3 6/ 20 2 0 0 0 | 106 14 15 29[/b][/b][/color]
15 Clinton Bourbonais F FR | 13 4 0 4 4/ 8 0 0 2 0 | 6 2 0 2 1/ 2 0 0 1 0 | 13 4 0 4
[color=#FF0000][b]12 Ken Trentowski D SR | 32 1 3 4 8/ 16 0 0 0 0 | 22 1 2 3 6/ 12 0 0 0 0 | 91 2 13 15[/color]
[color=#FF0000]1 Ryan Rondeau G SR | 32 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 | 22 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 | 46 0 2 2[/b][/color]
4 Gus Young (COA) D FR | 5 0 1 1 2/ 4 0 0 0 0 | 2 0 0 0 1/ 2 0 0 0 0 | 5 0 1 1
It's not just quantity but quality. That is arguably the best graduating class in the ECAC in the last 20 years.
Vaya con Dios.
Union OTOH looks like they are just at the start of their run.
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: css228As I read recently we didnt get a lot of the players we wanted in this class.
Where did you read that? I'm not challenging you, I'm curious. The only thing I have read indicating we didn't get certain players was that a couple guys appear to have used us as a bargaining chip to get Major Junior deals.
A quote from the CHN article on the Devin twins. I think Schafer said this, "I remember the day we committed to him, we had just had a bunch of other guys say they wanted to come here and then went back on their commitment". That kind of sounds to me as if there were players that they wanted that they didn't get.
Devins (http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2011/03/16_devin_may_care_attitude.php)
*Actually it looks like we're speaking about the same thing, that said doesn't mean that wouldn't screw up your recruiting*
Quote from: TrotskyTo be fair, Yale has been great for three years. However, they have a problem:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yale | Overall - 34 GP (27- 6- 1 .809) | Conf Only - 22 GP (17- 4- 1 .795) | Career
------------------------------------|-------------------------------------|-------------------------------------|----------------
## Player POS YR | GP G A PTS PEN/MIN PP SH GW GT | GP G A PTS PEN/MIN PP SH GW GT | GP G A PTS
2 Jimmy Martin D SR | 34 7 15 22 16/ 32 4 0 1 0 | 22 3 7 10 12/ 24 1 0 1 0 | 136 11 46 57
7 Mike Matczak D SR | 34 2 12 14 7/ 22 0 0 1 0 | 22 1 9 10 3/ 14 0 0 1 0 | 112 8 31 39
12 Ken Trentowski D SR | 32 1 3 4 8/ 16 0 0 0 0 | 22 1 2 3 6/ 12 0 0 0 0 | 91 2 13 15
1 Ryan Rondeau G SR | 32 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 | 22 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 | 46 0 2 2
There's their problem. If Allain can scratch together a team that will have anything more than a mediocre season after losing that much D, I'll hail him as the second coming.
Quote from: Scersk '97Quote from: TrotskyTo be fair, Yale has been great for three years. However, they have a problem:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yale | Overall - 34 GP (27- 6- 1 .809) | Conf Only - 22 GP (17- 4- 1 .795) | Career
------------------------------------|-------------------------------------|-------------------------------------|----------------
## Player POS YR | GP G A PTS PEN/MIN PP SH GW GT | GP G A PTS PEN/MIN PP SH GW GT | GP G A PTS
2 Jimmy Martin D SR | 34 7 15 22 16/ 32 4 0 1 0 | 22 3 7 10 12/ 24 1 0 1 0 | 136 11 46 57
7 Mike Matczak D SR | 34 2 12 14 7/ 22 0 0 1 0 | 22 1 9 10 3/ 14 0 0 1 0 | 112 8 31 39
12 Ken Trentowski D SR | 32 1 3 4 8/ 16 0 0 0 0 | 22 1 2 3 6/ 12 0 0 0 0 | 91 2 13 15
1 Ryan Rondeau G SR | 32 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 | 22 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 | 46 0 2 2
There's their problem. If Allain can scratch together a team that will have anything more than a mediocre season after losing that much D, I'll hail him as the second coming.
Well, that certainly makes this a post worth saving.
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: JDeafvThe systems put in place by the coaches and the player talent is intricately linked and the Cornell/Yale coaching staffs put in place systems that suit their teams.
Cornell does not play a tape-to-tape transition game through the neutral zone. Cornell uses tips and quick dump-ins through the neutral zone to get the puck deep below the goal line, executes puck retrieval (aka forechecking) and attempts to generate offense from the offensive zone cycle.
Yale plays a 2 out of the zone break-out transition game through the neutral zone that relies on the defense making tape-to-tape passes to the stretch forwards or the third forward through the neutral zone. This is the primary reason Yale "looks so fast." Their forwards essentially start first - transitioning to offense earlier. Yale generates offense from quick zone-entry shots. Also, Dartmouth's top line plays this system.
Cornell could not play Yale's system and Yale could not play Cornell's system. Yale is successful this year, because they have enough skill to execute the stretch plays (especially the third forward who is usually out-numbered 2-to-1 in the neutral zone) without leaving themselves susceptible to the counter-attack (see 9-7 loss to BC in NCAA quarterfinals last year).
Yale's system of play requires a much higher level of puck control and smart decision making on the part of the players. Cornell's system removes the decision making from the players and requires a physical presence to generate offense from the corners.
Schafer attempted to counter the stretch system in two ways. First, a Cornell forward should be on one of the stretch forwards creating a 1-on-2 overload with the Cornell defender and forward against one of the stretch forwards. Second, a Cornell forward should be high-side on the third forward. This is designed to slow the transition through the neutral zone and force turnovers or force the stretch offense team to dump and chase. It worked against Dartmouth, it didn't against Yale. Why? Yale is more talented and could execute. This Yale team is the culmination of events starting with Keith Allain's hire in 2006 and his ability to recruit players that fit this stretch system.
The great thing about eLynah is if we wait long enough even a thread this inane will turn up one intelligent post. Thank you.
All of the people talking about the fundamental failings of Cornell's system need to read this post a few times and try to understand that it's not inherently better or worse, it's just different. You still need talent and execution, and Cornell has frankly had less of both when compared with Yale over the past couple of seasons. I understand that you might prefer Yale's system to Cornell's - all else being equal it's a prettier style of hockey - but it's not fundamentally more effective. People make such a big deal over the 2005-ish rule changes that supposedly favor faster teams and systems that rely on skilled forwards handling the puck and passing through space. Over that stretch Cornell and Yale have been about equally successful in absolute terms, and Wisconsin - more of a Cornell style team in a Yale style league - has won a national title and played in another national title game (where they laid an egg, I admit, but they still got there).
I'm going to pick on Kyle now, because he should really know better.
Quote from: kroseThis is completely beside the point. Even if it is true (which is not at all clear), the difference in talent is a small part of the problem. Harvard brings in scads of blue chippahs every year, and they still suck hairy donkey scrotum. The difference here is coaching and system: some of it you can forgive for Cornell being so young this year, but the things I pointed out earlier (which someone, I think Rancor, correctly phrased as a lack of tape-to-tape passing and too much hesitation) are a result of a failure in coaching, not a lack of talent. A good transition game is a learned skill, not an instinct.
You make two points with the bolded statement. Both are more or less wrong in the D-I context.
First, reduced passing precision and that deer-in-the-headlights hesitation is *exactly* what I would expect from a team playing against a faster, more aggressive opponent. Yale has more talent, experience and speed than Cornell this year, and that enables them to be more aggressive. They're certainly faster and more aggressive than the average ECAC team. While the difference may seem marginal to us, it's an immense change for the guys on the ice. If you've ever played a sport at a reasonably high level and experienced the difference between a pretty good opponent and a truly great one you'll understand, but you don't even need to be all that good at the game of your choice to get the experience. Try playing up one level in your local adult league. Let's suppose you go from the top 30% to the bottom 50% of the talent distribution. You'll suddenly find that you're hesitating with the puck and completely failing to make passes that you normally hit. Why? Because you're rushed, and you're constantly working against unexpectedly close coverage. At my level of hockey, the difference is probably less than half a second (out of 2-3 seconds or so - we're really slow). In the sport I'm actually good at the rules give us 10 seconds to make decisions, but when the time comes to deliver a pass we have maybe half a second to react and execute. The difference between half a second in a high level game and 3/4 of a second in a mid-level game is immense. It's the difference between feeling like you control the game and can toy with your defenders and feeling like you don't know what the hell you're doing but you'd better do something fast. The fact that the better team also plays closer coverage - which requires greater precision in your passing - just amplifies the problems that arise as a result of rushing your play.
Second, a good transition game is a learned skill, not an instinct, but that skill is rarely learned at this point in a player's development curve. By the time you become a D-I athlete you've pretty well established yourself as a particular type of player. As jdeafv says, Cornell's players can't play Yale's system, and Yale's players can't play Cornell's style. It's a waste of time to even try - recruit the guys who fit your system, or fit your system to the guys you can recruit. Don't try to fit your guys to a system that emphasizes their weaknesses while hiding their strengths. Can Cornell be better on transition? Sure, but I think they get more offensive leverage by focusing on the breakout (rather than the run-and-gun transition game), the forecheck (duh) and the power play set (and with this team I think they should have ditched the umbrella in favor of an overload, but that's just me). In my time watching this program Cornell has never been a great passing team, but the best Cornell teams were pretty good with the puck. Better than this year, certainly, so I'm not saying they don't need work in transition - I just don't think trying to move towards a stretch transition system like Yale's is the right thing to do.
Whether or not this young group of college hockey players gets to be as good as Yale's incredible senior-heavy squad has been this season is an open question. That is the true test of coaching. Personally, I'm willing to wait for a few years and see how things pan out, and I don't think systemic changes are necessary.
To be competitive at the national level Cornell needs more depth, more experience and better execution - time will tell if Schafer can get those things. If he can't, we can start talking about a coaching change. If he can, I'm sure you all will still be here bitching about how Cornell hasn't won the NCAA title yet, or (hopefully) how Cornell only managed one title despite putting together a team for the ages.
Or you can just hit them harder along the boards and the puck eventually pops loose.
Quote from: Tom LentoFirst, reduced passing precision and that deer-in-the-headlights hesitation is *exactly* what I would expect from a team playing against a faster, more aggressive opponent.
Sure, but the hesitation looked to these eyes like "I don't know where my pass options are!", not a moment of hesitation in choosing one of the predetermined choices. One of the first things amateur hockey players learn is how to get open so the puck carrier has someone to pass the puck to: this is not something a D1 team should have trouble with, and yet I saw this hesitation on far too many Cornell breakouts.
QuoteSecond, a good transition game is a learned skill, not an instinct, but that skill is rarely learned at this point in a player's development curve. By the time you become a D-I athlete you've pretty well established yourself as a particular type of player. As jdeafv says, Cornell's players can't play Yale's system, and Yale's players can't play Cornell's style. It's a waste of time to even try - recruit the guys who fit your system, or fit your system to the guys you can recruit. Don't try to fit your guys to a system that emphasizes their weaknesses while hiding their strengths.
Just to be clear, I am
not advocating that Cornell change its system to Yale's; I don't think you should have gotten that from what I've written. I am merely arguing that Coach Schafer in four years has not figured out how to
counter such a system, and I feel he's going to have a hard time ever doing it if Cornell can't manage to stop giving Yale a few tenths of a second to adjust before each telegraphed pass.
I played a game during the latter half of the second and third period in which I observed the Cornell puck carrier's body language and tried to predict where the pass was going. The result? I got it right nearly every time. And if
I can get it right sitting 150 feet away with the puck carrier facing the other way, you damn well know the Yale players can, too.
Quote from: TowerroadQuote from: Scersk '97If Allain can scratch together a team that will have anything more than a mediocre season after losing that much D, I'll hail him as the second coming.
Well, that certainly makes this a post worth saving.
Ah, but of what would I hail him as the second coming? Of "Schafer," i.e., an ECAC coach that can sustain his program at a high level year after year.
How 'bout a chart?
=======================================================================================
Coach # of cons. seasons Comments
non-losing (active)
=======================================================================================
Overall min. 10
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Red Berenson 24 Roused a sleeping giant, yet "only" 2 nat. champs
Dick Umile 15 Only 2 conference championships
Jerry York 14 True beneficiary of BC's move to HE
Mike Schafer 12 Gwozdecky/Berenson or Umile on national level?
Rand Pecknold 12 Includes time in the MAAC and AH; 18-18-3 in '09
Scott Owens 12 Sustained what Lucia turned around
George Gwozdecky 11 Roused another sleeping giant
=======================================================================================
ECAC
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Schafer 12 3 #1 seeds, 5 conf. champs, 10 app. in finals
Keith Allain 4 Jerry York or Joe Marsh? Not Tim Taylor.
Nate Leaman 2 Probably the most impressive young coach
Seth Appert 2 "A nice guy," according to Schott. Who cares?
Guy Gadowsky 1 At least it's warmer.
Bob Gaudet 1 At Dartmouth as at Brown, still a hot-headed dick
=======================================================================================
ECAC # of cons. losing Comments
seasons
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
George Roll 3 Should add "Must Go" as additional surnames
Teddy Donato 2 Hopefully Harvard's Timmy Taylor
Brendan Whittet 2 Rumblings of a return to respectability
Rand Pecknold 1 Inclusion above reflects cupcake OOC schedule
Joe Marsh 1 The ECAC's Wile E. Coyote
Don Vaughan 1 What an inexplicable season!
So, can we quit complaining now? My own take on recent history is that, had the WCHA (specifically, Denver, Minnesota, and Wisconsin)
not undergone a renaissance at the same time as Schafer built his first few juggernauts, we probably would have made two more frozen fours and won at least one of those. Right now, I hope Minnesota and Wisconsin continue to have problems, North Dakota has a huge recruiting scandal, BC and Jerry York drop off the face of the Earth, Jeff Jackson curses the Lord and gets fired, Red Berenson finally decides to retire, Enrico Blasi takes his place but doesn't fit in, and Jack Parker puts together a good but somewhat underwhelming team that we can beat in the championship game in 2013.
I'm not exactly worried about Yale or Allain yet. Talk to me again in eight years.
Yale had a great offense last year and this year. I think one of the biggest reasons for their increased success this year is Rondeau, who statistically is the best goalie in the NCAA. GAA: 1.83 Save %: 0.932
Last year, all 4 Yale goalies had a GAA > 2.5 and a save % < 0.897
http://www.collegehockeynews.com/stats/team-overall.php?s=20092010&td=59
I'm sure everyone remembers the 9 goals that were given up to BC during the tournament.
For 2011-2012, if they can't come up with someone decent to replace Rondeau (and right now it isn't obvious who will step up), they are going to have a problem.
Quote from: Tom LentoQuote from: TrotskyQuote from: JDeafvThe systems put in place by the coaches and the player talent is intricately linked and the Cornell/Yale coaching staffs put in place systems that suit their teams.
Cornell does not play a tape-to-tape transition game through the neutral zone. Cornell uses tips and quick dump-ins through the neutral zone to get the puck deep below the goal line, executes puck retrieval (aka forechecking) and attempts to generate offense from the offensive zone cycle.
Yale plays a 2 out of the zone break-out transition game through the neutral zone that relies on the defense making tape-to-tape passes to the stretch forwards or the third forward through the neutral zone. This is the primary reason Yale "looks so fast." Their forwards essentially start first - transitioning to offense earlier. Yale generates offense from quick zone-entry shots. Also, Dartmouth's top line plays this system.
Cornell could not play Yale's system and Yale could not play Cornell's system. Yale is successful this year, because they have enough skill to execute the stretch plays (especially the third forward who is usually out-numbered 2-to-1 in the neutral zone) without leaving themselves susceptible to the counter-attack (see 9-7 loss to BC in NCAA quarterfinals last year).
Yale's system of play requires a much higher level of puck control and smart decision making on the part of the players. Cornell's system removes the decision making from the players and requires a physical presence to generate offense from the corners.
Schafer attempted to counter the stretch system in two ways. First, a Cornell forward should be on one of the stretch forwards creating a 1-on-2 overload with the Cornell defender and forward against one of the stretch forwards. Second, a Cornell forward should be high-side on the third forward. This is designed to slow the transition through the neutral zone and force turnovers or force the stretch offense team to dump and chase. It worked against Dartmouth, it didn't against Yale. Why? Yale is more talented and could execute. This Yale team is the culmination of events starting with Keith Allain's hire in 2006 and his ability to recruit players that fit this stretch system.
The great thing about eLynah is if we wait long enough even a thread this inane will turn up one intelligent post. Thank you.
All of the people talking about the fundamental failings of Cornell's system need to read this post a few times and try to understand that it's not inherently better or worse, it's just different. You still need talent and execution, and Cornell has frankly had less of both when compared with Yale over the past couple of seasons. I understand that you might prefer Yale's system to Cornell's - all else being equal it's a prettier style of hockey - but it's not fundamentally more effective. People make such a big deal over the 2005-ish rule changes that supposedly favor faster teams and systems that rely on skilled forwards handling the puck and passing through space. Over that stretch Cornell and Yale have been about equally successful in absolute terms, and Wisconsin - more of a Cornell style team in a Yale style league - has won a national title and played in another national title game (where they laid an egg, I admit, but they still got there).
I'm going to pick on Kyle now, because he should really know better.
Quote from: kroseThis is completely beside the point. Even if it is true (which is not at all clear), the difference in talent is a small part of the problem. Harvard brings in scads of blue chippahs every year, and they still suck hairy donkey scrotum. The difference here is coaching and system: some of it you can forgive for Cornell being so young this year, but the things I pointed out earlier (which someone, I think Rancor, correctly phrased as a lack of tape-to-tape passing and too much hesitation) are a result of a failure in coaching, not a lack of talent. A good transition game is a learned skill, not an instinct.
You make two points with the bolded statement. Both are more or less wrong in the D-I context.
First, reduced passing precision and that deer-in-the-headlights hesitation is *exactly* what I would expect from a team playing against a faster, more aggressive opponent. Yale has more talent, experience and speed than Cornell this year, and that enables them to be more aggressive. They're certainly faster and more aggressive than the average ECAC team. While the difference may seem marginal to us, it's an immense change for the guys on the ice. If you've ever played a sport at a reasonably high level and experienced the difference between a pretty good opponent and a truly great one you'll understand, but you don't even need to be all that good at the game of your choice to get the experience. Try playing up one level in your local adult league. Let's suppose you go from the top 30% to the bottom 50% of the talent distribution. You'll suddenly find that you're hesitating with the puck and completely failing to make passes that you normally hit. Why? Because you're rushed, and you're constantly working against unexpectedly close coverage. At my level of hockey, the difference is probably less than half a second (out of 2-3 seconds or so - we're really slow). In the sport I'm actually good at the rules give us 10 seconds to make decisions, but when the time comes to deliver a pass we have maybe half a second to react and execute. The difference between half a second in a high level game and 3/4 of a second in a mid-level game is immense. It's the difference between feeling like you control the game and can toy with your defenders and feeling like you don't know what the hell you're doing but you'd better do something fast. The fact that the better team also plays closer coverage - which requires greater precision in your passing - just amplifies the problems that arise as a result of rushing your play.
Second, a good transition game is a learned skill, not an instinct, but that skill is rarely learned at this point in a player's development curve. By the time you become a D-I athlete you've pretty well established yourself as a particular type of player. As jdeafv says, Cornell's players can't play Yale's system, and Yale's players can't play Cornell's style. It's a waste of time to even try - recruit the guys who fit your system, or fit your system to the guys you can recruit. Don't try to fit your guys to a system that emphasizes their weaknesses while hiding their strengths. Can Cornell be better on transition? Sure, but I think they get more offensive leverage by focusing on the breakout (rather than the run-and-gun transition game), the forecheck (duh) and the power play set (and with this team I think they should have ditched the umbrella in favor of an overload, but that's just me). In my time watching this program Cornell has never been a great passing team, but the best Cornell teams were pretty good with the puck. Better than this year, certainly, so I'm not saying they don't need work in transition - I just don't think trying to move towards a stretch transition system like Yale's is the right thing to do.
Whether or not this young group of college hockey players gets to be as good as Yale's incredible senior-heavy squad has been this season is an open question. That is the true test of coaching. Personally, I'm willing to wait for a few years and see how things pan out, and I don't think systemic changes are necessary.
To be competitive at the national level Cornell needs more depth, more experience and better execution - time will tell if Schafer can get those things. If he can't, we can start talking about a coaching change. If he can, I'm sure you all will still be here bitching about how Cornell hasn't won the NCAA title yet, or (hopefully) how Cornell only managed one title despite putting together a team for the ages.
It's times like these I wish eLynah had a like button
Quote from: css228Quote from: ajh258Well, can we recruit the players we need? From what I understand, the big talented players that fits our system are mostly going out west to schools like UND, and we cannot compete on that level due to a lot of factors that have already been discussed multiple times on eLynah.
Keith Allain's recruiting and execution strategy definitely fits well for the Ivies because most of their players are not the huge pre-NHL draft picks that other top schools recruit, and they still dance circles around them. The Yale fans I talked to said most of their players do not plan to play hockey professionally after school (some will perhaps play AHL), and their profile fits perfectly into the student-athlete model that the Ivy League tries to endorse.
So maybe the solution isn't fighting the market forces and trying to recruit the right players for our system. Maybe, the solution is changing the system into something that will fit the players we can recruit. I'm not calling for Schafer's resignations right now, but if he cannot make some fundamental changes in the upcoming months/year, we'll probably watch the same style of hockey for the next decade or so. There might be another amazing 2003 season down the road, but those will be very few and between. For the dedication and resources we have as a fan base and school, we should produce better results than what we have right now.
If this isn't the right system then I'm not sure Schafer is the right coach. I'd rather take a shot at trying to get more guys like Hudon's and Moulson's and Murray's at the moment then trying to switch our coach. Schafer is a great coach, potentially the best we've had since Harkness. But is he a transition hockey coach? I'm not sure.
Forgive me if I'm not as knowledgeable as some of you about systems, but what's wrong with the following reasoning?
[list=1]
- Absent a major rules change, which system will dominate depends on the players in the system. The Detroit Red Wings beat Yale 100% of the time.
- A really talented team can play multiple systems depending on the opponent and circumstance, just as champion B-Ball teams switch between zone, man-to-man, full-court press, etc. on D and beating off the dribble, 3-pointers, etc. on O. This, however, may take time to develop in a team, and players need to stay together for a few years for all facets to gel. Not all lines will be equally good at this.
- Good coaches evolve as the game evolves. They study films, ask friend coaches for advice, visit pro teams using systems they want to emulate, etc. in order to learn how to implement a new system and teach it to their players. Recruiting players suitable for a new system may take longer because (a) players want to play where they fit and must be convinced that the coach is using a new, better-fit system and (b) players want to go to successful programs and a program in transition will have some growing pains.
- Yale has gone from doormat to dominant in almost no time. Before we assume it is a permanent thing, we need to see how things go after their current seniors are gone.
- Yale was helped a great deal by new financial aid policies that Cornell is only adjusting to now and that we may never be able to match. In the latter case, the playing field will never be level, and we'd better get used to it.
- Harkness faced something similar in recruiting. The Boston and Minnesota schools locked up their local talent, and no other region had as deep a talent pool. Harvard, BC, and BU dominated eastern hockey for years. He found a way around this by recruiting in Canada, as had several of the successful western programs. He took lots of heat, and the former haves tried to get rules passed to bring back the previous state of affairs. Finding some way around the formal lack of athletic scholarships but the de facto scholarships at Yale, may be the only option for Cornell. This may take the form of more recruiting in Europe, closer ties with more successful Canadian teams or something else.
- If winning a NC is the goal, we must look beyond the ECAC. It does us no good to get past Yale only to get creamed by goofers and Sue. The question is how to be on par at that level.
Quote from: SwampyQuote from: css228Quote from: ajh258Well, can we recruit the players we need? From what I understand, the big talented players that fits our system are mostly going out west to schools like UND, and we cannot compete on that level due to a lot of factors that have already been discussed multiple times on eLynah.
Keith Allain's recruiting and execution strategy definitely fits well for the Ivies because most of their players are not the huge pre-NHL draft picks that other top schools recruit, and they still dance circles around them. The Yale fans I talked to said most of their players do not plan to play hockey professionally after school (some will perhaps play AHL), and their profile fits perfectly into the student-athlete model that the Ivy League tries to endorse.
So maybe the solution isn't fighting the market forces and trying to recruit the right players for our system. Maybe, the solution is changing the system into something that will fit the players we can recruit. I'm not calling for Schafer's resignations right now, but if he cannot make some fundamental changes in the upcoming months/year, we'll probably watch the same style of hockey for the next decade or so. There might be another amazing 2003 season down the road, but those will be very few and between. For the dedication and resources we have as a fan base and school, we should produce better results than what we have right now.
If this isn't the right system then I'm not sure Schafer is the right coach. I'd rather take a shot at trying to get more guys like Hudon's and Moulson's and Murray's at the moment then trying to switch our coach. Schafer is a great coach, potentially the best we've had since Harkness. But is he a transition hockey coach? I'm not sure.
Forgive me if I'm not as knowledgeable as some of you about systems, but what's wrong with the following reasoning?
[list=1]
- Absent a major rules change, which system will dominate depends on the players in the system. The Detroit Red Wings beat Yale 100% of the time.
- A really talented team can play multiple systems depending on the opponent and circumstance, just as champion B-Ball teams switch between zone, man-to-man, full-court press, etc. on D and beating off the dribble, 3-pointers, etc. on O. This, however, may take time to develop in a team, and players need to stay together for a few years for all facets to gel. Not all lines will be equally good at this.
- Good coaches evolve as the game evolves. They study films, ask friend coaches for advice, visit pro teams using systems they want to emulate, etc. in order to learn how to implement a new system and teach it to their players. Recruiting players suitable for a new system may take longer because (a) players want to play where they fit and must be convinced that the coach is using a new, better-fit system and (b) players want to go to successful programs and a program in transition will have some growing pains.
- Yale has gone from doormat to dominant in almost no time. Before we assume it is a permanent thing, we need to see how things go after their current seniors are gone.
- Yale was helped a great deal by new financial aid policies that Cornell is only adjusting to now and that we may never be able to match. In the latter case, the playing field will never be level, and we'd better get used to it.
- Harkness faced something similar in recruiting. The Boston and Minnesota schools locked up their local talent, and no other region had as deep a talent pool. Harvard, BC, and BU dominated eastern hockey for years. He found a way around this by recruiting in Canada, as had several of the successful western programs. He took lots of heat, and the former haves tried to get rules passed to bring back the previous state of affairs. Finding some way around the formal lack of athletic scholarships but the de facto scholarships at Yale, may be the only option for Cornell. This may take the form of more recruiting in Europe, closer ties with more successful Canadian teams or something else.
- If winning a NC is the goal, we must look beyond the ECAC. It does us no good to get past Yale only to get creamed by goofers and Sue. The question is how to be on par at that level.
Pretty much saying the same thing that the system really doesn't matter if we have the players, but I do think Schafer is wedded to this system as a coach.
My question from the beginning was: can we get the players for our style of play? We obviously cannot recruit Red Wings players, so that argument is moot. As I said, all the big, talented guys who work well for our style are being recruited by those western schools, which we cannot compete with due to our financial and academic constraints. Is the problem that we simply cannot pass? Is the problem recruiting? Schafer has had many years to figure these problems out and we still do not have a sustained NCAA tourney presence.
Quote from: ajh258Schafer has had many years to figure these problems out and we still do not have a sustained NCAA tourney presence.
You say that as if that's some sort of standard for being a decent team. Consider tourney appearances since 2002 (the last 10 tournaments):
Michigan 10
UNH 10
North Dakota 10
[b]Denver[/b] 7
[b]BC[/b] 7
Miami 7
[b]Wisconsin[/b] 6
[b]Minnesota[/b] 6
Cornell 6
CC 6
[b]BU[/b] 6
Notre Dame 5
[b]Michigan State[/b] 5
SCSU 5
Maine 5
Harvard 5
Ohio State 4
Bemidji 4
AFA 4
Duluth 3
Yale 3
UNO 2
Holy Cross 2
Mercyhurst 2
Niagara 2
Clarkson 2
UAH 2
Princeton 2
Vermont 2
Colgate 1
Northeastern 1
Alaska 1
RIT 1
NMU 1
Union 1
Merrimack 1
RPI 1
WMU 1
Quinnipiac 1
SLU 1
UMass 1
Wayne State 1
Mankato 1
Ferris State 1 44 teams made it to the tournament. Six did so more frequently than Cornell. Not every team can be Michigan, North Dakota, or UNH. Of course those teams have exactly as many titles as Cornell over the last decade.
Quote from: Chris '03Quote from: ajh258Schafer has had many years to figure these problems out and we still do not have a sustained NCAA tourney presence.
You say that as if that's some sort of standard for being a decent team. Consider tourney appearances since 2002 (the last 10 tournaments):
Michigan 10
UNH 10
North Dakota 10
[b][b][b]Denver[/b][/b] 7[/b]
[b][b][b]BC[/b][/b] 7[/b]
Miami 7
[b][b][b]Wisconsin[/b][/b] 6
[b][b]Minnesota[/b][/b] 6[/b]
Cornell 6
CC 6
[b][b][b]BU[/b][/b] 6[/b]
Notre Dame 5
[b][b][b]Michigan State[/b][/b] 5[/b]
SCSU 5
Maine 5
Harvard 5
Ohio State 4
Bemidji 4
AFA 4
Duluth 3
Yale 3
UNO 2
Holy Cross 2
Mercyhurst 2
Niagara 2
Clarkson 2
UAH 2
Princeton 2
Vermont 2
Colgate 1
Northeastern 1
Alaska 1
RIT 1
NMU 1
Union 1
Merrimack 1
RPI 1
WMU 1
Quinnipiac 1
SLU 1
UMass 1
Wayne State 1
Mankato 1
Ferris State 1
44 teams made it to the tournament. Six did so more frequently than Cornell. Not every team can be Michigan, North Dakota, or UNH. Of course those teams have exactly as many titles as Cornell over the last decade.
Thank you Chris for compiling this list. I was trying to recall how many national championships Michigan has won in the past decade or so. I thought it was a big fat zero. Glad to know I still have some memory cells that still function ;-).
Almost every year, Cornell is in a position to win the ECACs and/or have a PWR ranking that puts them in position to be in the NC$$ tournament. Given our academic and financial aid constraints, I happen to think that is pretty darn good. UND and Michigan presumably have their pick of blue chip recruits and I wonder if their fans are bitching as much as we are about their lack of NC$$ titles over the past decade.
Quote from: RitaThank you Chris for compiling this list. I was trying to recall how many national championships Michigan has won in the past decade or so. I thought it was a big fat zero. Glad to know I still have some memory cells that still function ;-).
Almost every year, Cornell is in a position to win the ECACs and/or have a PWR ranking that puts them in position to be in the NC$$ tournament. Given our academic and financial aid constraints, I happen to think that is pretty darn good. UND and Michigan presumably have their pick of blue chip recruits and I wonder if their fans are bitching as much as we are about their lack of NC$$ titles over the past decade.
Given that Michigan stole most of their chants from us I'm sure they stole our discontent with no titles from us too!
Quote from: css228Quote from: RitaThank you Chris for compiling this list. I was trying to recall how many national championships Michigan has won in the past decade or so. I thought it was a big fat zero. Glad to know I still have some memory cells that still function ;-).
Almost every year, Cornell is in a position to win the ECACs and/or have a PWR ranking that puts them in position to be in the NC$$ tournament. Given our academic and financial aid constraints, I happen to think that is pretty darn good. UND and Michigan presumably have their pick of blue chip recruits and I wonder if their fans are bitching as much as we are about their lack of NC$$ titles over the past decade.
Given that Michigan stole most of their chants from us I'm sure they stole our discontent with no titles from us too!
Harvard basketball fans did a good job of that too
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ul6YhsgjY9I&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJmewyPLkkM&NR=1
Quote from: Chris '03Quote from: ajh258Schafer has had many years to figure these problems out and we still do not have a sustained NCAA tourney presence.
You say that as if that's some sort of standard for being a decent team. Consider tourney appearances since 2002 (the last 10 tournaments):
...
44 teams made it to the tournament. Six did so more frequently than Cornell. Not every team can be Michigan, North Dakota, or UNH. Of course those teams have exactly as many titles as Cornell over the last decade.
And let's see how many Forzen 4 appearances teams had in the same 10-year span:
BC: 6UND: 5
Maine: 4
Michigan: 4
Minnesota: 3UNH: 2
Michigan State: 2Denver: 2Miami: 2
Wisconsin: 2BU: 1Cornell: 1Notre Dame: 1
Bemidji: 1
Vermont: 1
CC: 1
Duluth: 1
RIT: 1
Sustained means we don't get knocked out first or second round. Making the tourney is one thing. Winning games is another.
Quote from: ajh258Quote from: Chris '03Quote from: ajh258Schafer has had many years to figure these problems out and we still do not have a sustained NCAA tourney presence.
You say that as if that's some sort of standard for being a decent team. Consider tourney appearances since 2002 (the last 10 tournaments):
...
44 teams made it to the tournament. Six did so more frequently than Cornell. Not every team can be Michigan, North Dakota, or UNH. Of course those teams have exactly as many titles as Cornell over the last decade.
And let's see how many Forzen 4 appearances teams had in the same 10-year span:
BC: 6
UND: 5
Maine: 4
Michigan: 4
Minnesota: 3
UNH: 2
Michigan State: 2
Denver: 2
Miami: 2
Wisconsin: 2
BU: 1
Cornell: 1
Notre Dame: 1
Bemidji: 1
Vermont: 1
CC: 1
Duluth: 1
RIT: 1
Sustained means we don't get knocked out first or second round. Making the tourney is one thing. Winning games is another.
I don't know how much more you can ask for though, because in '06 we lost to UW in 3 OT 1-0 so thats just one bounce from going our way and in '05 lost to Minnesota 2-1 in OT, lost to UNH by 1 in '02. a few bounces go our way and you can legitimately say we'd have 3 Frozen Fours in the last decade (especially with the 2 OT games). So if we get four more situations like that in the next decade (The Frozen Four year and 3 near misses) I'd love our odds at a title.
Quote from: ajh258And let's see how many Forzen 4 appearances teams had in the same 10-year span:
BC: 6
UND: 5
Maine: 4
Michigan: 4
Minnesota: 3
UNH: 2
Michigan State: 2
Denver: 2
Miami: 2
Wisconsin: 2
BU: 1
Cornell: 1
Notre Dame: 1
Bemidji: 1
Vermont: 1
CC: 1
Duluth: 1
RIT: 1
Sustained means we don't get knocked out first or second round. Making the tourney is one thing. Winning games is another.
It seems that pride in Cornell's hockey programs and well wishes for their success obfuscate some realities about Cornell University and its competitor universities. Cornell is a premier university in all fields. I think that most on here will realize that. It is likely why many of us chose to attend there. It has conflicting demands to maintain this stature. It must modernize facilities, fund research, and augment the educational experiences available on all of its global campuses. These considerations are absent from the calculi of many of the universities whose hockey programs have more success in collegiate hockey recently. Membership in the Ivy League and the heightened academic standards expected of our student-athletes makes it difficult to find players who both have the athletic skills and academic prowess so that they will not appear as an undeserving occupant of a space at the University because of their skills on the ice. The higher the standards, the smaller the pool of eligible players. That is why I am not that impressed with Union's self-imposed non-scholarship system. I mean no offense to Union, it is a good school, but its standards do not rise to anywhere near the level of the Ivies in the ECAC. It inherits a larger pool prospectives then. But that is a digression. Following this approach, I took the list of schools with their respective Frozen Four appearances and appended their current U.S. New and World Reports National University rankings. This adds an element showing the calibre of education offered by each respective university. The results follow.
BC: FF: 6, USNWR: 31
UND: FF: 5, USNWR: 159
Maine: FF: 4, USNWR: 159
Michigan: FF: 4, USNWR: 29
Minnesota: FF: 3, USNWR: 64
UNH: FF: 2, USNWR: 104
Michigan State: FF: 2, USNWR: 79
Denver: FF: 2, USNWR: 86
Miami: FF: 2, USNWR: 79
Wisconsin: FF: 2, USNWR: 45
BU: FF: 1, USNWR: 56
Cornell: FF: 1, USNWR: 15
Notre Dame: FF: 1, USNWR: 19
Bemidji: FF: 1, USNWR: Unranked Nationally
Vermont: FF: 1, USNWR: 94
The average USNWR National University Ranking of teams that played in the Frozen Four is 73. That is ignoring Bemidiji State's unranked status. Cornell's current rank is 15. It is the highest ranked university on the list. Only two teams representing universities ranked in the top 20 made the Frozen Four. They both only did it once (Cornell and Notre Dame). Only three teams made the Frozen Four whose associated universities are ranked in the top 30. The third is Michigan. Michigan invests far more resources into its athletics programs than does Cornell. That explains the discrepancy in four appearance for Michigan and one for Cornell. Anyone who thinks that prioritization and academic standards of each university has nothing to do with this is deluding themselves.
Cornell has chosen to compete both in collegiate hockey and in the global academic arena. It has excelled in both. It won a Conference championship last year and the year prior it made the NCAA Regional Finals. I am sure if hockey and appearances in the Frozen Four are all that mattered to those on here, not academics or any of the other externalities that make Cornell great, then many could have easily gone to one of the other universities on the list provided. For me, it is an analysis of the totality of the circumstances: Cornell is a great university that has remained competitive, by any pragmatic assessment, in an era when universities have chosen either to gain publicity through their athletic programs while embracing relative mediocrity in academics, or to focus primarily on academics. Cornell has been able to navigate both extremes and remain relevant in both arenas.
This is all why I agree with Schafer's remarks from Saturday, "I'm proud of our program...I'm proud to be a Cornellian."
Quote from: underskillQuote from: css228Quote from: RitaThank you Chris for compiling this list. I was trying to recall how many national championships Michigan has won in the past decade or so. I thought it was a big fat zero. Glad to know I still have some memory cells that still function ;-).
Almost every year, Cornell is in a position to win the ECACs and/or have a PWR ranking that puts them in position to be in the NC$$ tournament. Given our academic and financial aid constraints, I happen to think that is pretty darn good. UND and Michigan presumably have their pick of blue chip recruits and I wonder if their fans are bitching as much as we are about their lack of NC$$ titles over the past decade.
Given that Michigan stole most of their chants from us I'm sure they stole our discontent with no titles from us too!
Harvard basketball fans did a good job of that too
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ul6YhsgjY9I&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJmewyPLkkM&NR=1
I bet they got an A for originality.
I have enjoyed this thread immensely and learned a few things from people that know the game much better that I do (which will not prevent me from offering seemingly informed opinions in the future). Perhaps we should take a step back and ask what success is for Cornell Hockey. I think we focus too much on that elusive NCAA title. The nature of sports dictates that we constantly strive for the summit but no one could say that in recent years the Cornell Lax, Womens Hockey, or Wrestling have not been fabulously successful and a source of immense pride even though the ultimate title eluded them. So, lets take our eyes off the summit for a moment and enjoy the view, here are a few of my thoughts informed or otherwise about other measures of success:
1. Beating the Harvard Mens Varsity Figure Skating Society.
2. Filling Lynah East with a sea of Red and humiliating both of the aforesaid Figure Skating Society fans when it comes to Alma Mater singing and general cheering.
3. Filling Lynah and maintaining the traditions and dreaded passion of the Faithful from the Anthems to the Salute.
4. Having the best band in the Ivy's
5. Winning the Ivy League.
6. Making it to the second round of the NCAA Tournament
7. Graduating Hockey Players who got an education
8. Selling out womens games.
9. Consistently beating Yale
If we do these things on a regular basis and never win a title who is to say that the program is not a tremendous success.
Quote from: underskillQuote from: css228Quote from: RitaThank you Chris for compiling this list. I was trying to recall how many national championships Michigan has won in the past decade or so. I thought it was a big fat zero. Glad to know I still have some memory cells that still function ;-).
Almost every year, Cornell is in a position to win the ECACs and/or have a PWR ranking that puts them in position to be in the NC$$ tournament. Given our academic and financial aid constraints, I happen to think that is pretty darn good. UND and Michigan presumably have their pick of blue chip recruits and I wonder if their fans are bitching as much as we are about their lack of NC$$ titles over the past decade.
Given that Michigan stole most of their chants from us I'm sure they stole our discontent with no titles from us too!
Harvard basketball fans did a good job of that too
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ul6YhsgjY9I&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJmewyPLkkM&NR=1
I particularly enjoy the cheer where they exhibit indifference towards the other teams by reading newspapers, but oh wait!....they actually seem to be paying particularly close attention, in order to yell "Sucks!" at precisely the correct moment!
They must be terribly emotionally conflicted.
I believe that with our newly competitive financial aid policy, we will attract the players we need to win. Andy Noel's letter in the spring Spirit Magazine is very encouraging for all our athletic programs [and for all of Cornell's students]. Winning more recruiting battles should lead to winning more titles. We have an oustanding class coming in. In Schafer I trust!
Quote from: CASI believe that with our newly competitive financial aid policy, we will attract the players we need to win. Andy Noel's letter in the spring Spirit Magazine is very encouraging for all our athletic programs [and for all of Cornell's students]. Winning more recruiting battles should lead to winning more titles. We have an oustanding class coming in. In Schafer I trust!
Thank you, nuf said.
Quote from: Jordan 04Quote from: underskillQuote from: css228Quote from: RitaThank you Chris for compiling this list. I was trying to recall how many national championships Michigan has won in the past decade or so. I thought it was a big fat zero. Glad to know I still have some memory cells that still function ;-).
Almost every year, Cornell is in a position to win the ECACs and/or have a PWR ranking that puts them in position to be in the NC$$ tournament. Given our academic and financial aid constraints, I happen to think that is pretty darn good. UND and Michigan presumably have their pick of blue chip recruits and I wonder if their fans are bitching as much as we are about their lack of NC$$ titles over the past decade.
Given that Michigan stole most of their chants from us I'm sure they stole our discontent with no titles from us too![/quote
Harvard basketball fans did a good job of that too
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ul6YhsgjY9I&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJmewyPLkkM&NR=1
I particularly enjoy the cheer where they exhibit indifference towards the other teams by reading newspapers, but oh wait!....they actually seem to be paying particularly close attention, in order to yell "Sucks!" at precisely the correct moment!
They must be terribly emotionally conflicted.
The salons of Cambridge must be all atwitter at the juxtaposition of ennui and passion. Now if someone could only deconstruct this thing that is done with baskets for them.
Quote from: CASI believe that with our newly competitive financial aid policy, we will attract the players we need to win. Andy Noel's letter in the spring Spirit Magazine is very encouraging for all our athletic programs [and for all of Cornell's students]. Winning more recruiting battles should lead to winning more titles. We have an oustanding class coming in. In Schafer I trust!
Yeah - real shame that we had to go through such a dark period these last few years while learning these lessons. I mean, we've only had three straight ECAC championship appearances, an ECAC title, two NCAA tourney invites, and an NCAA upset victory. Ask my year 2000 self if that seems so bad. Or 1993. ::wow::
Quote from: ajh258Sustained means we don't get knocked out first or second round. Making the tourney is one thing. Winning games is another.
Wins in the NCAA tournament (http://www.tbrw.info/ecac_History/ecac_NCAA_Records_by_Team.htm) over Schafer's tenure:
7 Cornell
4 The Rest of the ECAC
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: ajh258Sustained means we don't get knocked out first or second round. Making the tourney is one thing. Winning games is another.
Wins in the NCAA tournament (http://www.tbrw.info/ecac_History/ecac_NCAA_Records_by_Team.htm) over Schafer's tenure:
7 Cornell
4 The Rest of the ECAC
5 All of the AHA
2 All of the CHA
::uhoh::
There's another disadvantage we face.
It should also be noted that our slow start this season was, in part, due to the fact that we opened with three losses against teams who had already been playing for a couple of weeks (NH, RIT, SLU). It's a disadvantage that the Ivies face in the all important OOC games that have a big effect on PWR. It also hurts the non-Ivy ECAC PWR's since they play the Ivies a lot.
Had we won those 3 games, we're #11 in PWR and looking forward to this weekend. And if we tie UNH and win the other two we'd still be in the tournament. Interestingly, in the latter scenario, Dartmouth would be in also, and CC and RPI would be out (ain't PWR wonderful).
Thanks to JTW's website for enabling those calculations.
Quote from: ajh258Quote from: Chris '03Quote from: ajh258Schafer has had many years to figure these problems out and we still do not have a sustained NCAA tourney presence.
You say that as if that's some sort of standard for being a decent team. Consider tourney appearances since 2002 (the last 10 tournaments):
...
44 teams made it to the tournament. Six did so more frequently than Cornell. Not every team can be Michigan, North Dakota, or UNH. Of course those teams have exactly as many titles as Cornell over the last decade.
And let's see how many Forzen 4 appearances teams had in the same 10-year span:
BC: 6
UND: 5
Maine: 4
Michigan: 4
Minnesota: 3
UNH: 2
Michigan State: 2
Denver: 2
Miami: 2
Wisconsin: 2
BU: 1
Cornell: 1
Notre Dame: 1
Bemidji: 1
Vermont: 1
CC: 1
Duluth: 1
RIT: 1
Sustained means we don't get knocked out first or second round. Making the tourney is one thing. Winning games is another.
I'm sorry. Complaining that "only" a single Frozen Four appearance somehow represents failure? As someone who graduated in the mid-80's when we didn't make the ECAC final four let alone the NCAA's, I have little to complain about regarding our success during the Schafer era. For those who would rather see someone else at the helm, I say be careful what you wish for.
Quote from: Towerroad1. Beating the Harvard Mens Varsity Figure Skating Society.
2. Filling Lynah East with a sea of Red and humiliating both of the aforesaid Figure Skating Society fans when it comes to Alma Mater singing and general cheering.
3. Filling Lynah and maintaining the traditions and dreaded passion of the Faithful from the Anthems to the Salute.
4. Having the best band in the Ivy's
5. Winning the Ivy League.
6. Making it to the second round of the NCAA Tournament
7. Graduating Hockey Players who got an education
8. Selling out womens games.
If we do these things on a regular basis and never win a title who is to say that the program is not a tremendous success.
I agree with that list entirely. I have bolded those that resonate most with me. Number 7 is basically what my entire protracted earlier response was about. Cornell produces skilled, intelligent hockey players that will not only be an asset to their teams but the society around them. Not every university or program that produces more Frozen Four teams can claim that. Cornellians and Cornell fans should be proud of that tradition and legacy.
I might add a Number 9 or an addendum to Number 5:
Return to beating Yale on a consistent basis. :-)
Lots of good stuff here ... that really should've been a separate thread. When you mark a forum read late at night and come back next day to find 26 new posts on one topic, as here, usually I assume someone took offense to something some else said, the topic drifts, and it's mostly oh-year-sez-you comebacks.
Quote from: scoop85Quote from: ajh258Quote from: Chris '03Quote from: ajh258Schafer has had many years to figure these problems out and we still do not have a sustained NCAA tourney presence.
You say that as if that's some sort of standard for being a decent team. Consider tourney appearances since 2002 (the last 10 tournaments):
...
44 teams made it to the tournament. Six did so more frequently than Cornell. Not every team can be Michigan, North Dakota, or UNH. Of course those teams have exactly as many titles as Cornell over the last decade.
And let's see how many Forzen 4 appearances teams had in the same 10-year span:
BC: 6
UND: 5
Maine: 4
Michigan: 4
Minnesota: 3
UNH: 2
Michigan State: 2
Denver: 2
Miami: 2
Wisconsin: 2
BU: 1
Cornell: 1
Notre Dame: 1
Bemidji: 1
Vermont: 1
CC: 1
Duluth: 1
RIT: 1
Sustained means we don't get knocked out first or second round. Making the tourney is one thing. Winning games is another.
I'm sorry. Complaining that "only" a single Frozen Four appearance somehow represents failure? As someone who graduated in the mid-80's when we didn't make the ECAC final four let alone the NCAA's, I have little to complain about regarding our success during the Schafer era. For those who would rather see someone else at the helm, I say be careful what you wish for.
From a 1994 grad, I have to second you on that one.
I'm disappointed that we have such low standards. No wonder student attendance has been declining.
Quote from: ajh258I'm disappointed that we have such low standards. No wonder student attendance has been declining.
I'm disappointed that there are such absurdly high standards. If your Frozen Four or bust position prevails among students, it is no wonder student attendance has been declining.
Quote from: Chris '03Quote from: ajh258I'm disappointed that we have such low standards. No wonder student attendance has been declining.
I'm disappointed that there are such absurdly high standards. If your Frozen Four or bust position prevails among students, it is no wonder student attendance has been declining.
Your hyperbole notwithstanding, I will again repeat a statement I've made on a number of occasions regarding Ivy League football: that while it's fabulous that these players are able to continue to play football and still get an Ivy League education, that doesn't mean I as a (former) student am obligated to watch them play. If Cornell the institution is content with competing for the ECAC crown every year as that conference slowly becomes a tinier, weaker, and less relevant walled garden, that's fine; but they should be content with fan interest dropping off as well.
The three reasons I watch Cornell hockey (as well as lacrosse) are (a) that I am emotionally connected to the University, (b) I like the college game with its personnel challenges better than the pro game, and (c) that the team is nationally competitive in the highest class within this demographic (college students). All of them are equally important. I could watch Cornell basketball or football, but frankly I don't feel like watching inferior quality sports just because I share a name on a diploma with the players. If Cornell stops being nationally competitive, I will probably lose interest: my time is precious, so I'd rather play inferior athletics than watch them. :-)
Quote from: ajh258I'm disappointed that we have such low standards. No wonder student attendance has been declining.
As a current student I can tell you the exact reason why student attendance has been declining. I know tons of people who'd love to have season tickets and just can't afford to shell out $260 dollars. As a result the a lot of the people who replaced them are people who thought "it might be cool to see some hockey games" and aren't tested for their dedication through "the line". If "the line" were still in place as the proof to the Athletic Department of fan commitment, instead of money as the benchmark, you'd have a far more hardcore fan base that would show up every weekend. For example, it costs less to get season football tickets at PSU for students than it does for students to have season tickets to Cornell Hockey. The Athletic Department has outpriced their best customer base.
Quote from: Kyle RoseQuote from: Chris '03Quote from: ajh258I'm disappointed that we have such low standards. No wonder student attendance has been declining.
I'm disappointed that there are such absurdly high standards. If your Frozen Four or bust position prevails among students, it is no wonder student attendance has been declining.
Your hyperbole notwithstanding, I will again repeat a statement I've made on a number of occasions regarding Ivy League football: that while it's fabulous that these players are able to continue to play football and still get an Ivy League education, that doesn't mean I as a (former) student am obligated to watch them play. If Cornell the institution is content with competing for the ECAC crown every year as that conference slowly becomes a tinier, weaker, and less relevant walled garden, that's fine; but they should be content with fan interest dropping off as well.
The three reasons I watch Cornell hockey (as well as lacrosse) are (a) that I am emotionally connected to the University, (b) I like the college game with its personnel challenges better than the pro game, and (c) that the team is nationally competitive in the highest class within this demographic (college students). All of them are equally important. I could watch Cornell basketball or football, but frankly I don't feel like watching inferior quality sports just because I share a name on a diploma with the players. If Cornell stops being nationally competitive, I will probably lose interest: my time is precious, so I'd rather play inferior athletics than watch them. :-)
I'd just like to say that I think there's a middle ground.
There are teams for whom a championship is often a (reasonable) hope, a frozen four is a reasonable reach/goal, a win in the tourney is the bar, and not making the tourney is a disappointment. There are teams for whom making the tournament would be great, and a frozen four would be the highlight of the program. Can't Cornell be somewhere between?
I think it's reasonable to put our yearly hopes at a frozen four, our goal at a tourney win, and our bar at making the tournament. By that standard, this year is a disappointment. So be it; if you've set your standards such that you never disappoint yourself, you've set them too low.
Quote from: ftyuvQuote from: Kyle RoseQuote from: Chris '03Quote from: ajh258I'm disappointed that we have such low standards. No wonder student attendance has been declining.
I'm disappointed that there are such absurdly high standards. If your Frozen Four or bust position prevails among students, it is no wonder student attendance has been declining.
Your hyperbole notwithstanding, I will again repeat a statement I've made on a number of occasions regarding Ivy League football: that while it's fabulous that these players are able to continue to play football and still get an Ivy League education, that doesn't mean I as a (former) student am obligated to watch them play. If Cornell the institution is content with competing for the ECAC crown every year as that conference slowly becomes a tinier, weaker, and less relevant walled garden, that's fine; but they should be content with fan interest dropping off as well.
The three reasons I watch Cornell hockey (as well as lacrosse) are (a) that I am emotionally connected to the University, (b) I like the college game with its personnel challenges better than the pro game, and (c) that the team is nationally competitive in the highest class within this demographic (college students). All of them are equally important. I could watch Cornell basketball or football, but frankly I don't feel like watching inferior quality sports just because I share a name on a diploma with the players. If Cornell stops being nationally competitive, I will probably lose interest: my time is precious, so I'd rather play inferior athletics than watch them. :-)
I'd just like to say that I think there's a middle ground.
There are teams for whom a championship is often a (reasonable) hope, a frozen four is a reasonable reach/goal, a win in the tourney is the bar, and not making the tourney is a disappointment. There are teams for whom making the tournament would be great, and a frozen four would be the highlight of the program. Can't Cornell be somewhere between?
I think it's reasonable to put our yearly hopes at a frozen four, our goal at a tourney win, and our bar at making the tournament. By that standard, this year is a disappointment. So be it; if you've set your standards such that you never disappoint yourself, you've set them too low.
Totally agree with these standards, and I was there in 70 and 67.:-P
Quote from: css228Quote from: ajh258I'm disappointed that we have such low standards. No wonder student attendance has been declining.
As a current student I can tell you the exact reason why student attendance has been declining. I know tons of people who'd love to have season tickets and just can't afford to shell out $260 dollars. As a result the a lot of the people who replaced them are people who thought "it might be cool to see some hockey games" and aren't tested for their dedication through "the line". If "the line" were still in place as the proof to the Athletic Department of fan commitment, instead of money as the benchmark, you'd have a far more hardcore fan base that would show up every weekend. For example, it costs less to get season football tickets at PSU for students than it does for students to have season tickets to Cornell Hockey. The Athletic Department has outpriced their best customer base.
I think we should give any comment by a current student great weight. The cost of education is hideous. The core of the faithful must be students or the program is not worth a damn.
Quote from: TowerroadQuote from: css228Quote from: ajh258I'm disappointed that we have such low standards. No wonder student attendance has been declining.
As a current student I can tell you the exact reason why student attendance has been declining. I know tons of people who'd love to have season tickets and just can't afford to shell out $260 dollars. As a result the a lot of the people who replaced them are people who thought "it might be cool to see some hockey games" and aren't tested for their dedication through "the line". If "the line" were still in place as the proof to the Athletic Department of fan commitment, instead of money as the benchmark, you'd have a far more hardcore fan base that would show up every weekend. For example, it costs less to get season football tickets at PSU for students than it does for students to have season tickets to Cornell Hockey. The Athletic Department has outpriced their best customer base.
I think we should give any comment by a current student great weight. The cost of education is hideous. The core of the faithful must be students or the program is not worth a damn.
I can attest to the accuracy of all those statements and their concerns. I graduated last year (May 2010). I have many friends who are sophomores and seniors. Many of them even held season tickets last year, but absent my insistence, they could not force themselves to buy tickets this year. All of them could not conscience spending the money with the other expenses of education and life in Ithaca. I think that cost is why students are not coming in droves as they used to, I do not feel it is want of passion in the sport because of "lack of success" or "lack of expectations, or the University, as some have suggested:
Quote from: ajh258I'm disappointed that we have such low standards. No wonder student attendance has been declining.
I would like to think that Cornellians are proud enough of their school's hockey tradition and the University holistically that Lynah will never be as overrun by opponents as Lynah East, or as silent and empty as Hobey Baker Memorial Rink, no matter how "disappointingly" the team is doing at a given time. Cornell hockey has weathered difficult times before and the fans are still impassioned and here. Thank goodness that such fickleness is not widespread among the Faithful. I do not consider a 2009 appearance in the NCAA Regional Finals, a 2010 ECAC Tournament Title, and a 2011 ECAC Championship game appearance by a team that is very young and inexperienced to be harbingers of a "dark age" in Cornell hockey as some would have us believe. Some would even have us believe that the "dark age" is upon us.
Quote from: ftyuvI'd just like to say that I think there's a middle ground.
There are teams for whom a championship is often a (reasonable) hope, a frozen four is a reasonable reach/goal, a win in the tourney is the bar, and not making the tourney is a disappointment. There are teams for whom making the tournament would be great, and a frozen four would be the highlight of the program. Can't Cornell be somewhere between?
I think it's reasonable to put our yearly hopes at a frozen four, our goal at a tourney win, and our bar at making the tournament. By that standard, this year is a disappointment. So be it; if you've set your standards such that you never disappoint yourself, you've set them too low.
With all due respect, you are representing a straw man of my position. I never said, and don't recall anyone but Facetimer implying, that Cornell should make the Frozen Four every season. I said they should be "nationally competitive". What that is is open to interpretation: I know it when I see it.
Quote from: Kyle RoseQuote from: ftyuvI'd just like to say that I think there's a middle ground.
There are teams for whom a championship is often a (reasonable) hope, a frozen four is a reasonable reach/goal, a win in the tourney is the bar, and not making the tourney is a disappointment. There are teams for whom making the tournament would be great, and a frozen four would be the highlight of the program. Can't Cornell be somewhere between?
I think it's reasonable to put our yearly hopes at a frozen four, our goal at a tourney win, and our bar at making the tournament. By that standard, this year is a disappointment. So be it; if you've set your standards such that you never disappoint yourself, you've set them too low.
With all due respect, you are representing a straw man of my position. I never said, and don't recall anyone but Facetimer implying, that Cornell should make the Frozen Four every season. I said they should be "nationally competitive". What that is is open to interpretation: I know it when I see it.
I don't think he was implying CU fans said that, but that
there are teams, hint, hint North Dakota, for whom...
But then, I should probably let ftyuv do the speaking.
Quote from: Kyle RoseQuote from: ftyuvI'd just like to say that I think there's a middle ground.
There are teams for whom a championship is often a (reasonable) hope, a frozen four is a reasonable reach/goal, a win in the tourney is the bar, and not making the tourney is a disappointment. There are teams for whom making the tournament would be great, and a frozen four would be the highlight of the program. Can't Cornell be somewhere between?
I think it's reasonable to put our yearly hopes at a frozen four, our goal at a tourney win, and our bar at making the tournament. By that standard, this year is a disappointment. So be it; if you've set your standards such that you never disappoint yourself, you've set them too low.
With all due respect, you are representing a straw man of my position. I never said, and don't recall anyone but Facetimer implying, that Cornell should make the Frozen Four every season. I said they should be "nationally competitive". What that is is open to interpretation: I know it when I see it.
So we're using the supreme court definition of pornography to define nationally competitive? To me, I'd like to see us make a Frozen Four once or twice a decade, make the NCAA tournament 3/4 years, and get home byes almost every year in the ECAC tournament. I think those are realistic for us. And most importantly you if you make the Frozen Four anything can happen. However, I think Schafer's teams have accomplished these standards, especially since in '05 and '06 we went to overtime in the regional finals (one in triple overtime). That's all you can ask for is a chance to be there. And the '06 team took the eventual national champs to 3OT, so any other regional and I think we have 2 Frozen Fours this decade and its a completely different conversation.
Remembering that this year was a rebuilding year that got off to a very slow start, a 4th place regular season finish and 2nd place in the ECAC tourney is not too bad. Some schools can't even do that in a good year.
However, when we have a successful team like last year's, our expectations should be much higher. In addition to a good end result, we should expect more out-of-conference wins and we should also expect wins (or at the very least well-played, close games) against other top ECAC teams (aka Yale).
And never, ever, under any circumstance should we be tied for 10th place in the ECAC with a team like Harvard (which I believe we were for a while at the beginning of this season)
Quote from: Kyle RoseWith all due respect, you are representing a straw man of my position. I never said, and don't recall anyone but Facetimer implying, that Cornell should make the Frozen Four every season. I said they should be "nationally competitive". What that is is open to interpretation: I know it when I see it.
Kyle, you do know that it's possible to agree with me and still maintain credibility -- you don't have to distance yourself from me in every post. I agree that we should be "nationally competitive" every year. Obviously that doesn't mean we will win the championship or get a Frozen Four appearance every year. But that should be our motivation, our expectation, and our goal. Schafer has become complacent and has lost sight of these goals. Trotsky's obscure (yet irrelevant) stats may be enough for some of you to justify your support for Schafer, but it is clear from this thread that many of you are also concerned with the direction of this program. The first step back on the right path is a fresh face at the helm.
Quote from: Jim HylaQuote from: Kyle RoseQuote from: ftyuvI'd just like to say that I think there's a middle ground.
There are teams for whom a championship is often a (reasonable) hope, a frozen four is a reasonable reach/goal, a win in the tourney is the bar, and not making the tourney is a disappointment. There are teams for whom making the tournament would be great, and a frozen four would be the highlight of the program. Can't Cornell be somewhere between?
I think it's reasonable to put our yearly hopes at a frozen four, our goal at a tourney win, and our bar at making the tournament. By that standard, this year is a disappointment. So be it; if you've set your standards such that you never disappoint yourself, you've set them too low.
With all due respect, you are representing a straw man of my position. I never said, and don't recall anyone but Facetimer implying, that Cornell should make the Frozen Four every season. I said they should be "nationally competitive". What that is is open to interpretation: I know it when I see it.
I don't think he was implying CU fans said that, but that there are teams, hint, hint North Dakota, for whom...
But then, I should probably let ftyuv do the speaking.
Pretty much. It seemed to me that there were somewhat extreme ends of the spectrum being implied, if not being explicitly stated, and I felt like explicitly stating what was to me a reasonable "not quite NoDak, not quite Army" standard.
Quote from: TowerroadI have enjoyed this thread immensely and learned a few things from people that know the game much better that I do (which will not prevent me from offering seemingly informed opinions in the future). Perhaps we should take a step back and ask what success is for Cornell Hockey. I think we focus too much on that elusive NCAA title. The nature of sports dictates that we constantly strive for the summit but no one could say that in recent years the Cornell Lax, Womens Hockey, or Wrestling have not been fabulously successful and a source of immense pride even though the ultimate title eluded them. So, lets take our eyes off the summit for a moment and enjoy the view, here are a few of my thoughts informed or otherwise about other measures of success:
1. Beating the Harvard Mens Varsity Figure Skating Society.
2. Filling Lynah East with a sea of Red and humiliating both of the aforesaid Figure Skating Society fans when it comes to Alma Mater singing and general cheering.
3. Filling Lynah and maintaining the traditions and dreaded passion of the Faithful from the Anthems to the Salute.
4. Having the best band in the Ivy's
5. Winning the Ivy League.
6. Making it to the second round of the NCAA Tournament
7. Graduating Hockey Players who got an education
8. Selling out womens games.
9. Consistently beating Yale
If we do these things on a regular basis and never win a title who is to say that the program is not a tremendous success.
I would put Winning the ECACs somewhere on a list of successes. We won't do it every year, but the more the better.
Also, talk to me again in 3-4 years about whether #9 means anything. In the past you could have substituted "Clarkson" for "Yale", and look where they are now.
Quote from: jtwcornell91I would put Winning the ECACs somewhere on a list of successes.
Winning the ECACs should always be a goal. It seems that people take it for granted that Cornell will make the ECAC Semifinals each year and walk into another ECAC title. I guess that they have forgotten that there have been periods when that even seemed an unattainable goal for Cornell.
Quote from: jtwcornell91Also, talk to me again in 3-4 years about whether #9 means anything. In the past you could have substituted "Clarkson" for "Yale", and look where they are now.
That is a fair point. I think that more will always be at stake with Yale though because there is the added Ivy League rivalry. I feel that Cornell-Yale has the potential to border upon, but not equal nor surpass, Cornell-Harvard in its passion because of the dynamic as of late wherein, no matter where each team is ranked in the Conference, that game has particular emotional relevance because Yale has embarrassed Cornell as of late. I would argue that Yale basks in their contemporary success against Cornell.
I feel that Union dominated us this season but that irritates Cornell fans far less than Yale's domination over our program. I admit, that could be me projecting.
Our first win this year was against Clarkson. That shows that not even a program in that poor of shape is a guaranteed victory for Cornell.
Quote from: jtwcornell91Quote from: TowerroadI have enjoyed this thread immensely and learned a few things from people that know the game much better that I do (which will not prevent me from offering seemingly informed opinions in the future). Perhaps we should take a step back and ask what success is for Cornell Hockey. I think we focus too much on that elusive NCAA title. The nature of sports dictates that we constantly strive for the summit but no one could say that in recent years the Cornell Lax, Womens Hockey, or Wrestling have not been fabulously successful and a source of immense pride even though the ultimate title eluded them. So, lets take our eyes off the summit for a moment and enjoy the view, here are a few of my thoughts informed or otherwise about other measures of success:
1. Beating the Harvard Mens Varsity Figure Skating Society.
2. Filling Lynah East with a sea of Red and humiliating both of the aforesaid Figure Skating Society fans when it comes to Alma Mater singing and general cheering.
3. Filling Lynah and maintaining the traditions and dreaded passion of the Faithful from the Anthems to the Salute.
4. Having the best band in the Ivy's
5. Winning the Ivy League.
6. Making it to the second round of the NCAA Tournament
7. Graduating Hockey Players who got an education
8. Selling out womens games.
9. Consistently beating Yale
If we do these things on a regular basis and never win a title who is to say that the program is not a tremendous success.
I would put Winning the ECACs somewhere on a list of successes. We won't do it every year, but the more the better.
Also, talk to me again in 3-4 years about whether #9 means anything. In the past you could have substituted "Clarkson" for "Yale", and look where they are now.
The list was more focused on "Smelling the Roses" and small victories but I take your point. If we win the Ivy's and make the Tournament then it is likely we will have done well or the best in the ECAC.
I put #9 there at the suggestion of another poster but I think it is a demon that needs to be exorcised.
Like any set of goals they will evolve over time. Perhaps we should have a goal not to have a team that we are consistently losing to (Competitive or dominant vs all the ECAC?). I agree that Cornell-Yale might turn into a fun rivalry, right now it is neither fun nor a rivalry.
Because Cornell has been a sort of counterweight to the entire rest of the ECAC over Schafer's time, there's almost always that one team that is a ferocious and often successful competitor. The mark of a dominant team isn't usually the absence of any competitor, but maintaining a high standard while competitors rise and fall.
Here are the seeds by year (http://www.tbrw.info/ecac_History/ecac_Seeds.html) in the ECAC tourney. That one team has been, roughly:
(our RS record (http://www.tbrw.info/weekly_Updates/cornell_H2H_by_Team.html) and playoff record (http://www.tbrw.info/games/cornell_Playoff_Games.html) against them in parens)
1996-1999 Clarkson (2-6-0, 2-0)
1999-2001 St. Lawrence (1-4-1, 0-2)
2002-2006 Harvard (7-3-0, 2-2)
2006-2007 Dartmouth (1-3-0, 0-0)
2008-2009 Princeton (1-3-0 0-1)
2009-2011 Yale (0-6-0, 0-2)
Other than around 2002-2006, when Harvard still got us twice in ECAC finals during their "turn," we've always had one Achilles heel, yet we've stayed on top while those apparent Titans have always fallen back to earth.
Quote from: jtwcornell91In the past you could have substituted "Clarkson" for "Yale", and look where they are now.
Except that Cornell never lost 8 straight to Clarkson, getting embarrassed in almost every loss. My problem with Cornell's performance vs. Yale is that Cornell continues not to have a clue how to beat this team: this is very different from losing streaks vs. Dartmouth, Clarkson, Harvard, etc.
Quote from: Kyle RoseQuote from: jtwcornell91In the past you could have substituted "Clarkson" for "Yale", and look where they are now.
Except that Cornell never lost 8 straight to Clarkson, getting embarrassed in almost every loss. My problem with Cornell's performance vs. Yale is that Cornell continues not to have a clue how to beat this team: this is very different from losing streaks vs. Dartmouth, Clarkson, Harvard, etc.
IMHO the streak against Yale says almost nothing about Cornell and everything about Yale. They've had an insanely talented team since 2008-09. We'll see if they continue to dominate us. If I had to bet, I would say they will be about as good next year as we were this year, for the same reason.
Quote from: TrotskyBecause Cornell has been a sort of counterweight to the entire rest of the ECAC over Schafer's time, there's almost always that one team that is a ferocious and often successful competitor. The mark of a dominant team isn't usually the absence of any competitor, but maintaining a high standard while competitors rise and fall.
Here are the seeds by year (http://www.tbrw.info/ecac_History/ecac_Seeds.html) in the ECAC tourney. That one team has been, roughly:
(our RS record (http://www.tbrw.info/weekly_Updates/cornell_H2H_by_Team.html) and playoff record (http://www.tbrw.info/games/cornell_Playoff_Games.html) against them in parens)
1996-1999 Clarkson (2-6-0, 2-0)
1999-2001 St. Lawrence (1-4-1, 0-2)
2002-2006 Harvard (7-3-0, 2-2)
2006-2007 Dartmouth (1-3-0, 0-0)
2008-2009 Princeton (1-3-0 0-1)
2009-2011 Yale (0-6-0, 0-2)
Other than Harvard, who still got us twice in ECAC finals during their "turn," we've always had one Achilles heel, yet we've stayed on top while those apparent Titans have always fallen back to earth.
If it's true that Yale's current team was engineered to beat Cornell, it says a lot about our long-term position in the ECAC. It's like Allain decided the route to success in the ECAC ran through the Big Red.
Another way of quantifying it. Number of times finishing 1-4, 5-8, 9-12, for those teams and us:
Since 1996
13 3 0 Cornell
8 4 4 Clarkson
6 8 2 Harvard
6 4 6 Dartmouth
6 3 7 St. Lawrence
5 4 7 Yale
3 7 6 Princeton
With Current Config (Since Quinnipiac)
5 1 0 Cornell
3 1 2 Dartmouth
3 1 2 Yale
2 2 2 Clarkson
2 2 2 Harvard
2 2 2 Princeton
2 2 2 St. Lawrence
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: Kyle RoseQuote from: jtwcornell91In the past you could have substituted "Clarkson" for "Yale", and look where they are now.
Except that Cornell never lost 8 straight to Clarkson, getting embarrassed in almost every loss. My problem with Cornell's performance vs. Yale is that Cornell continues not to have a clue how to beat this team: this is very different from losing streaks vs. Dartmouth, Clarkson, Harvard, etc.
IMHO the streak against Yale says almost nothing about Cornell and everything about Yale. They've had an insanely talented team since 2008-09. We'll see if they continue to dominate us. If I had to bet, I would say they will be about as good next year as we were this year, for the same reason.
I doubt Cornell will beat Yale 4-2, 4-1, and 6-0 next year, embarrassing them in the process. You and I are simply going to have to disagree on the core point: the problem is
not that Yale is so insanely talented but that in four years of Yale's building their system around that talent the Cornell coaching staff has not figured out a way to make Cornell consistently competitive against them. As I have pointed out numerous (two? three? five?) times, Cornell's much more talented 2009-10 squad (relative to 2010-11) could not muster a win against Yale, though they did come close in that OT loss late in the season.
As many have pointed out Cornell has been the dominant team in the ECAC during the Schafer era. The coach deserves a lot of credit for this. However, in the ECAC ecosystem there are other species that are vying for supremacy. It takes a while to understand that the ecosystem has changed and then to adapt to that change. The ecosystem changed when Mike Schafer arrived in Ithaca. It took a few years but by the middle of the last decade it was clear that Cornell was the dominant species.
So, the other member of the ecosystem, if they want to thrive as JTW said have to recognize that the road to the top of the ECAC leads through the Big Red. In order to rise to the top they either have to recruit bigger tougher players or evolve into a form that the Red can't deal with. Fortunately for them, the Cornell system is clear and it has its weaknesses which over time teams like Yale, Union and Princeton have learned to exploit in their bids for the top spot in the ecosystem.
So that is what I think the root of the angst on these pages. The there are some competitors that want our spot in the ecosystem and are evolving in ways that challenge our dominance. Those who are not concerned think of these rodents (or in one case slime molds) as an evolutionary dead end and those of us who are more concerned wonder if the age of the dinosaurs is at an end.
Quote from: TowerroadAs many have pointed out Cornell has been the dominant team in the ECAC during the Schafer era.
I think that cuts to the big question: is dominance of the ECAC enough to qualify for success? I for one would like a bit more. Again, I'm not calling for a Frozen Four every year and a championship once every five -- but something a bit more than "we're the top of the middle tier."
Quote from: Kyle RoseYou and I are simply going to have to disagree on the core point: the problem is not that Yale is so insanely talented but that in four years of Yale's building their system around that talent the Cornell coaching staff has not figured out a way to make Cornell consistently competitive against them.
We will disagree, but I don't think you can just "figure out" how to compete with a team that is simply head and shoulders superior to you, as Yale was this year. Last year Yale had essentially the same squad plus a pre-nautitorial Backmann and Arcobello. IMHO (and many may disagree) the 2010 Yale squad was actually better than this year's (the main rebuttal to which is Rondeau played great this year).
Quote from: Kyle RoseI doubt Cornell will beat Yale 4-2, 4-1, and 6-0 next year, embarrassing them in the process. You and I are simply going to have to disagree on the core point: the problem is not that Yale is so insanely talented but that in four years of Yale's building their system around that talent the Cornell coaching staff has not figured out a way to make Cornell consistently competitive against them. As I have pointed out numerous (two? three? five?) times, Cornell's much more talented 2009-10 squad (relative to 2010-11) could not muster a win against Yale, though they did come close in that OT loss late in the season.
I agree with your argument but not necessarily the Schafer-must-go conclusion that likely follows. The fact that Cornell has not been able to respond to Yale's rise or its system in any meaningful way is very alarming. If Cornell hockey and Schafer, as a coach, want to remain relevant in college hockey, both must come up with a response to Yale's system. I do not think that means abandoning Cornell's system entirely but finding a way to adapt it when playing teams such as Yale. I do feel that Schafer deserves some deference for bringing prestige (everyone on here can debate about how much) back to a program that was performing abysmally before he took the helm. I will suspend my judgment on Schafer until next season. The reason that Yale seemed so dominant this year is because of their maturity and team dynamic. Assets that were absent from a Cornell team that was largely young and inexperienced because they lived in the shadows of the likes of B. Nash, R. Nash, Greening, Krueger, and Scrivens. I have hope for next year. We might not be able to embarrass Yale but returning to beating them would be nice.
I was at the 2010 Yale-Cornell OT loss. The entire credit of that game goes to Scrivens. Neither Schafer nor the other coaches had any answers to Yale that night. It was Scrivens's amazing performance with 52 saves that allowed Cornell the chance to even stay even with Yale for so long. No team should put their goalie in a position where he needs to make 52 saves just to stay in a game.
Quote from: Aaron M. GriffinI agree with your argument but not necessarily the Schafer-must-go conclusion that likely follows. The fact that Cornell has not been able to respond to Yale's rise or its system in any meaningful way is very alarming. If Cornell hockey and Schafer, as a coach, want to remain relevant in college hockey, both must come up with a response to Yale's system.
GAAAAH! I'm just going to stop reading here, because evidently you read only the sentence of my posts or you would have seen that I have written
multiple times that I am not advocating anything like switching to the Yale system. When your reading comprehension improves, let me know and I'll give your posts further thought.
Quote from: TrotskyWe will disagree, but I don't think you can just "figure out" how to compete with a team that is simply head and shoulders superior to you
They may not figure out how to win, but they certainly should be able to figure out how not to lose 6-0 after several years of observation and planning.
Quote from: Kyle RoseThey may not figure out how to win, but they certainly should be able to figure out how not to lose 6-0 after several years of observation and planning.
I was there for both blowout losses and didn't enjoy them any more than you did.
It would really help my argument if Yale won the national championship this year, so I'll be rooting for that. ;)
Quote from: Kyle RoseQuote from: Aaron M. GriffinI agree with your argument but not necessarily the Schafer-must-go conclusion that likely follows. The fact that Cornell has not been able to respond to Yale's rise or its system in any meaningful way is very alarming. If Cornell hockey and Schafer, as a coach, want to remain relevant in college hockey, both must come up with a response to Yale's system.
GAAAAH! I'm just going to stop reading here, because evidently you read only the sentence of my posts or you would have seen that I have written multiple times that I am not advocating anything like switching to the Yale system. When your reading comprehension improves, let me know and I'll give your posts further thought.
My reading comprehension is plenty high enough. Perhaps it is you who should read more carefully. I only quoted your post as a segway to analyze other, broader statements that have been made by others. Nowhere did I imply or state that
you stated that Cornell should abandon their system.
There are others who contribute relevant and valid opinions other than you. I was addressing the notion of some that Cornell should transition to a Yale-like system. You are amiss if you are going to argue that
no one has argued that on here. I was merely addressing the necessity of making such changes that some have advocated. Neither you nor I think it is convincing. I agree with your general premise that Cornell's coaching staff has proven woefully inadequate in addressing the Yale challenge. An answer to Yale can be found within Cornell's current system.
Quote from: Kyle RoseQuote from: TrotskyWe will disagree, but I don't think you can just "figure out" how to compete with a team that is simply head and shoulders superior to you
They may not figure out how to win, but they certainly should be able to figure out how not to lose 6-0 after several years of observation and planning.
I hate to go with "wait and see" as a strategy, but I think we'll find out soon whether Yale truly exploited some flaw in our strategy, or if it's just that this year's graduating class for Yale was absolutely stacked.
Quote from: DafatoneQuote from: Kyle RoseQuote from: TrotskyWe will disagree, but I don't think you can just "figure out" how to compete with a team that is simply head and shoulders superior to you
They may not figure out how to win, but they certainly should be able to figure out how not to lose 6-0 after several years of observation and planning.
I hate to go with "wait and see" as a strategy, but I think we'll find out soon whether Yale truly exploited some flaw in our strategy, or if it's just that this year's graduating class for Yale was absolutely stacked.
Miller, Agostino, etc. They're not going away anytime soon even if they take a step back next year.
Quote from: DafatoneQuote from: Kyle RoseQuote from: TrotskyWe will disagree, but I don't think you can just "figure out" how to compete with a team that is simply head and shoulders superior to you
They may not figure out how to win, but they certainly should be able to figure out how not to lose 6-0 after several years of observation and planning.
I hate to go with "wait and see" as a strategy, but I think we'll find out soon whether Yale truly exploited some flaw in our strategy, or if it's just that this year's graduating class for Yale was absolutely stacked.
If only 11/4 was really soon.
Quote from: underskillMiller, Agostino, etc. They're not going away anytime soon even if they take a step back next year.
We'll see. Those are good players but the thing that made Yale a killer was rolling four fast, lethal lines backed by experienced defense. The graveyards are full of teams with just one great line. How many ECAC titles did UVM's elves win?
Quote from: Jim HylaQuote from: DafatoneQuote from: Kyle RoseQuote from: TrotskyWe will disagree, but I don't think you can just "figure out" how to compete with a team that is simply head and shoulders superior to you
They may not figure out how to win, but they certainly should be able to figure out how not to lose 6-0 after several years of observation and planning.
I hate to go with "wait and see" as a strategy, but I think we'll find out soon whether Yale truly exploited some flaw in our strategy, or if it's just that this year's graduating class for Yale was absolutely stacked.
If only 11/4 was really soon.
Like hell! I am a fan of College Hockey but lets not forget that we have Lax and Baseball and SUMMER. I can wait for next Nov. I want my SUMMER first.
Quote from: TowerroadQuote from: Jim HylaQuote from: DafatoneQuote from: Kyle RoseQuote from: TrotskyWe will disagree, but I don't think you can just "figure out" how to compete with a team that is simply head and shoulders superior to you
They may not figure out how to win, but they certainly should be able to figure out how not to lose 6-0 after several years of observation and planning.
I hate to go with "wait and see" as a strategy, but I think we'll find out soon whether Yale truly exploited some flaw in our strategy, or if it's just that this year's graduating class for Yale was absolutely stacked.
If only 11/4 was really soon.
Like hell! I am a fan of College Hockey but lets not forget that we have Lax and Baseball and SUMMER. I can wait for next Nov. I want my SUMMER first.
I don't know who this Summer chick is, but I bet she looks hot in a parka!
Quote from: Kyle RoseQuote from: TrotskyWe will disagree, but I don't think you can just "figure out" how to compete with a team that is simply head and shoulders superior to you
They may not figure out how to win, but they certainly should be able to figure out how not to lose 6-0 after several years of observation and planning.
You realize that you are talking about the team that is the #1 seed in the NCAA tournament, right? It isn't like Yale beat us, while struggling to win the conference and flailing through the OOC schedule. They are - by every conceivable measure except wishful thinking - a much better team than Cornell is this year. As Trotsky said above, the whipping post we've been tied to for the last few years reflects the talent that is passing through New Haven at a time when Cornell is trying to replace a series of classes that have had more NHL talent in program history.
I don't understand the carping from so many people after a season that was
better than people expected it to be before the puck dropped on the Red/White game.
Quote from: ugarteQuote from: Kyle RoseQuote from: TrotskyWe will disagree, but I don't think you can just "figure out" how to compete with a team that is simply head and shoulders superior to you
They may not figure out how to win, but they certainly should be able to figure out how not to lose 6-0 after several years of observation and planning.
You realize that you are talking about the team that is the #1 seed in the NCAA tournament, right? It isn't like Yale beat us, while struggling to win the conference and flailing through the OOC schedule. They are - by every conceivable measure except wishful thinking - a much better team than Cornell is this year. As Trotsky said above, the whipping post we've been tied to for the last few years reflects the talent that is passing through New Haven at a time when Cornell is trying to replace a series of classes that have had more NHL talent in program history.
I don't understand the carping from so many people after a season that was better than people expected it to be before the puck dropped on the Red/White game.
We are not talking about the past ugarte, we are talking about the future. I don't think anyone will argue that this season was beyond expectations. However, the goal here is to avoid games like this in years to come, not pat ourselves on the back and say, "Oh it's because they were #1."
And everyone please stop with the talent thing. Yale has no NHL draft picks in their entire senior class. We had Nash/Nash/Scrivens/Greening and all those other guys last year and we still lost to them.
Quote from: ajh258We are not talking about the past ugarte, we are talking about the future. I don't think anyone will argue that this season was beyond expectations. However, the goal here is to avoid games like this in years to come, not pat ourselves on the back and say, "Oh it's because they were #1."
And everyone please stop with the talent thing. Yale has no NHL draft picks in their entire senior class. We had Nash/Nash/Scrivens/Greening and all those other guys last year and we still lost to them.
A team that finishes in fourth place and gets to the conference championship game during a rebuilding year has a bright future. Cornell is bringing in a very talented freshman class in the fall. When those players become juniors and seniors (and some won't stay for four years), we can reevaluate whether Cornell is a first-rate D1 program. Casey Jones has a reputation for being an excellent recruiter. So far, the recruiting results have looked good. Let's see how those recruits perform as upperclassmen.
I strongly agree with the premise that the 2009-10 team fell short of expectations. But, one underachieving team that was good instead of great does not mean that the program is doomed to disappoint us during its next peak.
Lastly, it's fallacious to assert that there has been no talent gap between Yale and Cornell because Cornell has had more NHL draft picks. Lots of small, quick college players have tremendous success in college hockey despite getting overlooked in the draft. Undrafted smurfs Martin St. Louis and Eric Perrin were quite formidable for UVM 15 years ago. They comprised two thirds of the best line in the ECAC that I've seen in the last two decades.
Quote from: cbuckserThey comprised two thirds 95% of the best line in the ECAC that I've seen in the last two decades.
FYP. As the Harvard radio announcer put it, "My grandmother would score 30 points a year on a line with those two."
(JC Ruid (http://www.eurohockey.net/players/show_player.cgi?serial=99947), in case you were wondering)
Quote from: ftyuvQuote from: TowerroadQuote from: Jim HylaQuote from: DafatoneQuote from: Kyle RoseQuote from: TrotskyWe will disagree, but I don't think you can just "figure out" how to compete with a team that is simply head and shoulders superior to you
They may not figure out how to win, but they certainly should be able to figure out how not to lose 6-0 after several years of observation and planning.
I hate to go with "wait and see" as a strategy, but I think we'll find out soon whether Yale truly exploited some flaw in our strategy, or if it's just that this year's graduating class for Yale was absolutely stacked.
If only 11/4 was really soon.
Like hell! I am a fan of College Hockey but lets not forget that we have Lax and Baseball and SUMMER. I can wait for next Nov. I want my SUMMER first.
I don't know who this Summer chick is, but I bet she looks hot in a parka!
Better in a bikini by the shore
Quote from: RobbQuote from: cbuckserThey comprised two thirds 95% of the best line in the ECAC that I've seen in the last two decades.
FYP. As the Harvard radio announcer put it, "My grandmother would score 30 points a year on a line with those two."
(JC Ruid (http://www.eurohockey.net/players/show_player.cgi?serial=99947), in case you were wondering)
Could we send this info to the Harvard coaches? I'm sure she'd get a look and also would be an A student if she were to matriculate.
What is the consensus (there has been so much on elynah of late) as to why we almost stole the game from Yale in Ithaca this year? If the ref had seen the puck under Rondeau's pad the game would have had a more exciting ending.
Quote from: toddloseQuote from: scoop85Quote from: ajh258Quote from: Chris '03Quote from: ajh258Schafer has had many years to figure these problems out and we still do not have a sustained NCAA tourney presence.
You say that as if that's some sort of standard for being a decent team. Consider tourney appearances since 2002 (the last 10 tournaments):
...
44 teams made it to the tournament. Six did so more frequently than Cornell. Not every team can be Michigan, North Dakota, or UNH. Of course those teams have exactly as many titles as Cornell over the last decade.
And let's see how many Forzen 4 appearances teams had in the same 10-year span:
BC: 6
UND: 5
Maine: 4
Michigan: 4
Minnesota: 3
UNH: 2
Michigan State: 2
Denver: 2
Miami: 2
Wisconsin: 2
BU: 1
Cornell: 1
Notre Dame: 1
Bemidji: 1
Vermont: 1
CC: 1
Duluth: 1
RIT: 1
Sustained means we don't get knocked out first or second round. Making the tourney is one thing. Winning games is another.
I'm sorry. Complaining that "only" a single Frozen Four appearance somehow represents failure? As someone who graduated in the mid-80's when we didn't make the ECAC final four let alone the NCAA's, I have little to complain about regarding our success during the Schafer era. For those who would rather see someone else at the helm, I say be careful what you wish for.
From a 1994 grad, I have to second you on that one.
Yeah, there are a number of coaching vacancies out there. If you remember how you felt when you saw the headlines last spring, "Donahue to BC" and "Tambroni to PSU," try on this thought experiment: "Schafer to PC."
Not very pretty, is it?
Quote from: ajh258We are not talking about the past ugarte, we are talking about the future. I don't think anyone will argue that this season was beyond expectations. However, the goal here is to avoid games like this in years to come, not pat ourselves on the back and say, "Oh it's because they were #1."
Really? Because from where I'm sitting the goal here appears to be to whine every time Cornell doesn't make the final four and determinedly avoid the discussion of evidence that suggests that the fault is not endemic to the system but rather a short-term downturn in an otherwise stellar run. Different people take different approaches to this: you and Facetimer seem to think that a coaching change to a unicorn* is the answer while Kyle seems to think that the kids are texting during practice instead of doing passing drills.**
The majority of us here think the answer is that anyone who expects Cornell to be the #1 team in the ECAC every year and a perpetual national title contender doesn't really pay attention to sports. Every team in every league has down years you ride out the storms when they are as mild as "lost in the ECAC championship game with a young team the year after losing most of the offense, an all-ECAC goalie and the #1 defenseman."
* This is an accurate portrayal.
** This is intentional exaggeration. Though, on this note, I always thought that LeNeveu and McKee always had to watch a lot of shitty passing too. Those teams weren't graceful passers, they mucked along the wall for the puck, got it up ice by dumping it into the corners and then mucked around again to set up their offense. If hockey was a skills competition even the best of Cornell's squads would have been middle of the pack.
Quote from: ugarteQuote from: ajh258We are not talking about the past ugarte, we are talking about the future. I don't think anyone will argue that this season was beyond expectations. However, the goal here is to avoid games like this in years to come, not pat ourselves on the back and say, "Oh it's because they were #1."
Really? Because from where I'm sitting the goal here appears to be to whine every time Cornell doesn't make the final four and determinedly avoid the discussion of evidence that suggests that the fault is not endemic to the system but rather a short-term downturn in an otherwise stellar run. Different people take different approaches to this: you and Facetimer seem to think that a coaching change to a unicorn* is the answer while Kyle seems to think that the kids are texting during practice instead of doing passing drills.**
The majority of us here think the answer is that anyone who expects Cornell to be the #1 team in the ECAC every year and a perpetual national title contender doesn't really pay attention to sports. Every team in every league has down years you ride out the storms when they are as mild as "lost in the ECAC championship game with a young team the year after losing most of the offense, an all-ECAC goalie and the #1 defenseman."
* This is an accurate portrayal.
** This is intentional exaggeration. Though, on this note, I always thought that LeNeveu and McKee always had to watch a lot of shitty passing too. Those teams weren't graceful passers, they mucked along the wall for the puck, got it up ice by dumping it into the corners and then mucked around again to set up their offense. If hockey was a skills competition even the best of Cornell's squads would have been middle of the pack.
Although I agree with just about everything ugarte says here, I do disagree with the last line. Watching our Harkness-coached NC teams was like watching a work of art. It was a different style in a different time, but the passes were amazing.
Quote from: SwampyAlthough I agree with just about everything ugarte says here, I do disagree with the last line. Watching our Harkness-coached NC teams was like watching a work of art. It was a different style in a different time, but the passes were amazing.
I only meant to refer to the best of the Schafer-coached squads. My Big Red watching started during the McCutcheon era.
Quote from: ugarte** This is intentional exaggeration. Though, on this note, I always thought that LeNeveu and McKee always had to watch a lot of shitty passing too. Those teams weren't graceful passers, they mucked along the wall for the puck, got it up ice by dumping it into the corners and then mucked around again to set up their offense. If hockey was a skills competition even the best of Cornell's squads would have been middle of the pack.
Feel free to go back through the archives and confirm that I've stated the same thing myself many times in the past. I recall once saying something about the passing ability of the mid-00's teams making the ECAC champion squads of the mid-90's crap bricks. :-)
The issue is not Cornell's ability in absolute terms: having seen the B&W footage of the 1960 NCAA title game, I am pretty well convinced that my beer league team could have beaten either team without breaking much of a sweat. The issue is precisely Cornell's ability relative to the other teams it is playing now: that means making adjustments to the system to compensate for other coaching staffs doing the same thing. Yale's system appears to have been designed specifically to beat Cornell—a strategy that appears to be working—which means Cornell needs a plan to counter this.
Let me be clear that I'm not saying that I expected this Cornell squad to beat this Yale squad, but I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a probability greater than zero of winning any particular game:
the system should prevent 6-0 losses given a reasonable D1 talent gap. If the final score were 2-0 or 4-2, we would not be having this conversation.
Quote from: ugarteReally? Because from where I'm sitting the goal here appears to be to whine every time Cornell doesn't make the final four and determinedly avoid the discussion of evidence that suggests that the fault is not endemic to the system but rather a short-term downturn in an otherwise stellar run. Different people take different approaches to this: you and Facetimer seem to think that a coaching change to a unicorn* is the answer while Kyle seems to think that the kids are texting during practice instead of doing passing drills.**
Is it a short term downturn? Again, it depends on what your definition of success and downturns are and, as mentioned before, it seems that your standards are just not as high. Of course you're going to say I'm complaining too much if you think the team has already met its goals. Taking personal shots at me for making suggestions might make you feel better, but it does not benefit the team. The attitude of content you have with our current performance demonstrates that you've given up on improving our team in a significant way. If that's true, please take a back seat and watch the rest of us at least try to make the program better. Additionally, I'm tired of trying to defend my position of not asking for a coaching change. Please read my previous posts before speaking.
Quote from: ugarteThe majority of us here think the answer is that anyone who expects Cornell to be the #1 team in the ECAC every year and a perpetual national title contender doesn't really pay attention to sports. Every team in every league has down years you ride out the storms when they are as mild as "lost in the ECAC championship game with a young team the year after losing most of the offense, an all-ECAC goalie and the #1 defenseman."
You're exaggerating our expectations and trying to make those of us who want to see the program better look like fools. Of course every team has up and downs, but I'm suggesting we try to move up the range of ups and downs. No one's asking for Frozen Four appearances every year, but does 2 or 3 times every decade sound that impossible? Right now, it doesn't look like we're on that track.
Also, I've never said the problem is with this year's team, yet you guys keep bringing this up over and over and over again.
Quote from: css228Quote from: ajh258I'm disappointed that we have such low standards. No wonder student attendance has been declining.
As a current student I can tell you the exact reason why student attendance has been declining. I know tons of people who'd love to have season tickets and just can't afford to shell out $260 dollars. As a result the a lot of the people who replaced them are people who thought "it might be cool to see some hockey games" and aren't tested for their dedication through "the line". If "the line" were still in place as the proof to the Athletic Department of fan commitment, instead of money as the benchmark, you'd have a far more hardcore fan base that would show up every weekend. For example, it costs less to get season football tickets at PSU for students than it does for students to have season tickets to Cornell Hockey. The Athletic Department has outpriced their best customer base.
Sorry to jump back to an earlier line of discussion, but this is absolutely correct, and it's the reason I didn't get STs last year or this year: they're just too expensive, and as I've found the cost of individual game tickets adds up quickly as well. This did mean that I was able to watch a fantastic basketball team and a great women's hockey team, but I'd prefer to be able to watch men's hockey as well. I'm sure that the atmosphere for the women's games near the end of the season was directly related to the fact that those were free (with the exception of the NCAA game, when tickets were just $3).
However, the Penn State argument is not a fair comparison because they have significantly fewer home games.
Quote from: BenQuote from: css228Quote from: ajh258I'm disappointed that we have such low standards. No wonder student attendance has been declining.
As a current student I can tell you the exact reason why student attendance has been declining. I know tons of people who'd love to have season tickets and just can't afford to shell out $260 dollars. As a result the a lot of the people who replaced them are people who thought "it might be cool to see some hockey games" and aren't tested for their dedication through "the line". If "the line" were still in place as the proof to the Athletic Department of fan commitment, instead of money as the benchmark, you'd have a far more hardcore fan base that would show up every weekend. For example, it costs less to get season football tickets at PSU for students than it does for students to have season tickets to Cornell Hockey. The Athletic Department has outpriced their best customer base.
Sorry to jump back to an earlier line of discussion, but this is absolutely correct, and it's the reason I didn't get STs last year or this year: they're just too expensive, and as I've found the cost of individual game tickets adds up quickly as well. This did mean that I was able to watch a fantastic basketball team and a great women's hockey team, but I'd prefer to be able to watch men's hockey as well. I'm sure that the atmosphere for the women's games near the end of the season was directly related to the fact that those were free (with the exception of the NCAA game, when tickets were just $3).
However, the Penn State argument is not a fair comparison because they have significantly fewer home games.
Still we shouldn't be paying more than PSU students for big time DI football. Even if you dropped tickets by $3 a game (200 for students instead of 260), I'm sure you'd see a massive increase in student attendance.
Quote from: ajh258Quote from: ugarteReally? Because from where I'm sitting the goal here appears to be to whine every time Cornell doesn't make the final four and determinedly avoid the discussion of evidence that suggests that the fault is not endemic to the system but rather a short-term downturn in an otherwise stellar run. Different people take different approaches to this: you and Facetimer seem to think that a coaching change to a unicorn* is the answer while Kyle seems to think that the kids are texting during practice instead of doing passing drills.**
Is it a short term downturn? Again, it depends on what your definition of success and downturns are and, as mentioned before, it seems that your standards are just not as high. Of course you're going to say I'm complaining too much if you think the team has already met its goals. Taking personal shots at me for making suggestions might make you feel better, but it does not benefit the team. The attitude of content you have with our current performance demonstrates that you've given up on improving our team in a significant way. If that's true, please take a back seat and watch the rest of us at least try to make the program better. Additionally, I'm tired of trying to defend my position of not asking for a coaching change. Please read my previous posts before speaking.
Quote from: ugarteThe majority of us here think the answer is that anyone who expects Cornell to be the #1 team in the ECAC every year and a perpetual national title contender doesn't really pay attention to sports. Every team in every league has down years you ride out the storms when they are as mild as "lost in the ECAC championship game with a young team the year after losing most of the offense, an all-ECAC goalie and the #1 defenseman."
You're exaggerating our expectations and trying to make those of us who want to see the program better look like fools. Of course every team has up and downs, but I'm suggesting we try to move up the range of ups and downs. No one's asking for Frozen Four appearances every year, but does 2 or 3 times every decade sound that impossible? Right now, it doesn't look like we're on that track.
Also, I've never said the problem is with this year's team, yet you guys keep bringing this up over and over and over again.
Wow, I never knew we had the possibility of improving the team. Tell me how we can do it, I'll sign up.
Well, I guess I do know how we (I) can improve the team. You (I) contribute financially and spiritually (cheering, etc.). You (I) try and give them enough finances to succeed and provide enough of the Lynah atmosphere, that those who get turned on by that want to come here.
Past that, what we (I) do on this board is bullshit. I happened to like to bullshit, so I post a lot. But I certainly don't think I
help the team by posting here. I hope no one in athletics spends much time here, or else I'm hurting the team, as their time would be a lot better spent doing other things.
How the h*ll (Yeah, I don't know why I can type bullshit and not this, so don't ask. OK?) you think we help the team by our mouthing off here, is beyond me. Maybe you can explain it sometime.
Again, what we do here is bullshit (as in talking, not that everything said is).
It doesn't help or hurt the team. There, I'm glad I said it.::thud::
Quote from: ajh258Is it a short term downturn? Again, it depends on what your definition of success and downturns are and, as mentioned before, it seems that your standards are just not as high.
The level of success that you seem to expect hasn't existed at Cornell, with the exception of one three-year stretch, since before your parents met each other. So this is either a short-term downturn or the middle of an INCREDIBLY long shitshow that will continue forever.
Quote from: ugarteQuote from: ajh258Is it a short term downturn? Again, it depends on what your definition of success and downturns are and, as mentioned before, it seems that your standards are just not as high.
The level of success that you seem to expect hasn't existed at Cornell, with the exception of one three-year stretch, since before your parents met each other. So this is either a short-term downturn or the middle of an INCREDIBLY long shitshow that will continue forever.
Thank you for adding some much-needed sense to this ridiculous discussion. Anyone who thinks Cornell is going to go out today and find another Ned Harkness who will recreate 1967-1970 is hallucinatory. As someone asked above--and was never answered--who is this savior Cornell is magically going to hire? Jerry York?
Quote from: css228Quote from: BenQuote from: css228Quote from: ajh258I'm disappointed that we have such low standards. No wonder student attendance has been declining.
As a current student I can tell you the exact reason why student attendance has been declining. I know tons of people who'd love to have season tickets and just can't afford to shell out $260 dollars. As a result the a lot of the people who replaced them are people who thought "it might be cool to see some hockey games" and aren't tested for their dedication through "the line". If "the line" were still in place as the proof to the Athletic Department of fan commitment, instead of money as the benchmark, you'd have a far more hardcore fan base that would show up every weekend. For example, it costs less to get season football tickets at PSU for students than it does for students to have season tickets to Cornell Hockey. The Athletic Department has outpriced their best customer base.
Sorry to jump back to an earlier line of discussion, but this is absolutely correct, and it's the reason I didn't get STs last year or this year: they're just too expensive, and as I've found the cost of individual game tickets adds up quickly as well. This did mean that I was able to watch a fantastic basketball team and a great women's hockey team, but I'd prefer to be able to watch men's hockey as well. I'm sure that the atmosphere for the women's games near the end of the season was directly related to the fact that those were free (with the exception of the NCAA game, when tickets were just $3).
However, the Penn State argument is not a fair comparison because they have significantly fewer home games.
Still we shouldn't be paying more than PSU students for big time DI football. Even if you dropped tickets by $3 a game (200 for students instead of 260), I'm sure you'd see a massive increase in student attendance.
If you can expand Lynah to 100,000 seats, and get BCS/Big 10 tv revenue to supplement ticket revenue, then this argument would hold up slightly better.
Quote from: ugarteQuote from: SwampyAlthough I agree with just about everything ugarte says here, I do disagree with the last line. Watching our Harkness-coached NC teams was like watching a work of art. It was a different style in a different time, but the passes were amazing.
I only meant to refer to the best of the Schafer-coached squads. My Big Red watching started during the McCutcheon era.
I knew what you meant. Personally, I long for the days when our goalie(s) is bored and leans on his stick, watching the game as our offense keeps the puck at the other end of the ice, taking shot after shot, checking to keep the other team bottled up, and making one-touch passes once they recover the puck. But that's not exactly Schafer's [current] style, and I'm OK with that.
Quote from: Jim HylaQuote from: ajh258Quote from: ugarteReally? Because from where I'm sitting the goal here appears to be to whine every time Cornell doesn't make the final four and determinedly avoid the discussion of evidence that suggests that the fault is not endemic to the system but rather a short-term downturn in an otherwise stellar run. Different people take different approaches to this: you and Facetimer seem to think that a coaching change to a unicorn* is the answer while Kyle seems to think that the kids are texting during practice instead of doing passing drills.**
Is it a short term downturn? Again, it depends on what your definition of success and downturns are and, as mentioned before, it seems that your standards are just not as high. Of course you're going to say I'm complaining too much if you think the team has already met its goals. Taking personal shots at me for making suggestions might make you feel better, but it does not benefit the team. The attitude of content you have with our current performance demonstrates that you've given up on improving our team in a significant way. If that's true, please take a back seat and watch the rest of us at least try to make the program better. Additionally, I'm tired of trying to defend my position of not asking for a coaching change. Please read my previous posts before speaking.
Quote from: ugarteThe majority of us here think the answer is that anyone who expects Cornell to be the #1 team in the ECAC every year and a perpetual national title contender doesn't really pay attention to sports. Every team in every league has down years you ride out the storms when they are as mild as "lost in the ECAC championship game with a young team the year after losing most of the offense, an all-ECAC goalie and the #1 defenseman."
You're exaggerating our expectations and trying to make those of us who want to see the program better look like fools. Of course every team has up and downs, but I'm suggesting we try to move up the range of ups and downs. No one's asking for Frozen Four appearances every year, but does 2 or 3 times every decade sound that impossible? Right now, it doesn't look like we're on that track.
Also, I've never said the problem is with this year's team, yet you guys keep bringing this up over and over and over again.
Wow, I never knew we had the possibility of improving the team. Tell me how we can do it, I'll sign up.
Well, I guess I do know how we (I) can improve the team. You (I) contribute financially and spiritually (cheering, etc.). You (I) try and give them enough finances to succeed and provide enough of the Lynah atmosphere, that those who get turned on by that want to come here.
Past that, what we (I) do on this board is bullshit. I happened to like to bullshit, so I post a lot. But I certainly don't think I help the team by posting here. I hope no one in athletics spends much time here, or else I'm hurting the team, as their time would be a lot better spent doing other things.
How the h*ll (Yeah, I don't know why I can type bullshit and not this, so don't ask. OK?) you think we help the team by our mouthing off here, is beyond me. Maybe you can explain it sometime.
Again, what we do here is bullshit (as in talking, not that everything said is). It doesn't help or hurt the team. There, I'm glad I said it.::thud::
In appreciation of Jim's post I found this:
(http://forums.ratedesi.com/images/smilies/bsflag.gif)
and this:
(http://forums.ratedesi.com/images/smilies/misc_firedevil.gif)
Quote from: martyIn appreciation of Jim's post I found this:
(http://forums.ratedesi.com/images/smilies/bsflag.gif)
and this:
(http://forums.ratedesi.com/images/smilies/misc_firedevil.gif)
Thanks, I needed that.:-}
Quote from: martyQuote from: Jim HylaQuote from: ajh258Quote from: ugarteReally? Because from where I'm sitting the goal here appears to be to whine every time Cornell doesn't make the final four and determinedly avoid the discussion of evidence that suggests that the fault is not endemic to the system but rather a short-term downturn in an otherwise stellar run. Different people take different approaches to this: you and Facetimer seem to think that a coaching change to a unicorn* is the answer while Kyle seems to think that the kids are texting during practice instead of doing passing drills.**
Is it a short term downturn? Again, it depends on what your definition of success and downturns are and, as mentioned before, it seems that your standards are just not as high. Of course you're going to say I'm complaining too much if you think the team has already met its goals. Taking personal shots at me for making suggestions might make you feel better, but it does not benefit the team. The attitude of content you have with our current performance demonstrates that you've given up on improving our team in a significant way. If that's true, please take a back seat and watch the rest of us at least try to make the program better. Additionally, I'm tired of trying to defend my position of not asking for a coaching change. Please read my previous posts before speaking.
Quote from: ugarteThe majority of us here think the answer is that anyone who expects Cornell to be the #1 team in the ECAC every year and a perpetual national title contender doesn't really pay attention to sports. Every team in every league has down years you ride out the storms when they are as mild as "lost in the ECAC championship game with a young team the year after losing most of the offense, an all-ECAC goalie and the #1 defenseman."
You're exaggerating our expectations and trying to make those of us who want to see the program better look like fools. Of course every team has up and downs, but I'm suggesting we try to move up the range of ups and downs. No one's asking for Frozen Four appearances every year, but does 2 or 3 times every decade sound that impossible? Right now, it doesn't look like we're on that track.
Also, I've never said the problem is with this year's team, yet you guys keep bringing this up over and over and over again.
Wow, I never knew we had the possibility of improving the team. Tell me how we can do it, I'll sign up.
Well, I guess I do know how we (I) can improve the team. You (I) contribute financially and spiritually (cheering, etc.). You (I) try and give them enough finances to succeed and provide enough of the Lynah atmosphere, that those who get turned on by that want to come here.
Past that, what we (I) do on this board is bullshit. I happened to like to bullshit, so I post a lot. But I certainly don't think I help the team by posting here. I hope no one in athletics spends much time here, or else I'm hurting the team, as their time would be a lot better spent doing other things.
How the h*ll (Yeah, I don't know why I can type bullshit and not this, so don't ask. OK?) you think we help the team by our mouthing off here, is beyond me. Maybe you can explain it sometime.
Again, what we do here is bullshit (as in talking, not that everything said is). It doesn't help or hurt the team. There, I'm glad I said it.::thud::
In appreciation of Jim's post I found this:
(http://forums.ratedesi.com/images/smilies/bsflag.gif)
and this:
(http://forums.ratedesi.com/images/smilies/misc_firedevil.gif)
I guess. ::drunk::
Quote from: Jim HylaQuote from: martyIn appreciation of Jim's post I found this:
(http://forums.ratedesi.com/images/smilies/bsflag.gif)
and this:
(http://forums.ratedesi.com/images/smilies/misc_firedevil.gif)
Thanks, I needed that.:-}
This thread has gone to
(http://i672.photobucket.com/albums/vv90/mellon_pic/H.gif)(http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o122/bsemig4298/e.gif)(http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k227/astral-ak/hockey/images.jpg)(http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k227/astral-ak/hockey/images.jpg)
Quote from: css228Quote from: BenQuote from: css228Quote from: ajh258I'm disappointed that we have such low standards. No wonder student attendance has been declining.
As a current student I can tell you the exact reason why student attendance has been declining. I know tons of people who'd love to have season tickets and just can't afford to shell out $260 dollars. As a result the a lot of the people who replaced them are people who thought "it might be cool to see some hockey games" and aren't tested for their dedication through "the line". If "the line" were still in place as the proof to the Athletic Department of fan commitment, instead of money as the benchmark, you'd have a far more hardcore fan base that would show up every weekend. For example, it costs less to get season football tickets at PSU for students than it does for students to have season tickets to Cornell Hockey. The Athletic Department has outpriced their best customer base.
Sorry to jump back to an earlier line of discussion, but this is absolutely correct, and it's the reason I didn't get STs last year or this year: they're just too expensive, and as I've found the cost of individual game tickets adds up quickly as well. This did mean that I was able to watch a fantastic basketball team and a great women's hockey team, but I'd prefer to be able to watch men's hockey as well. I'm sure that the atmosphere for the women's games near the end of the season was directly related to the fact that those were free (with the exception of the NCAA game, when tickets were just $3).
However, the Penn State argument is not a fair comparison because they have significantly fewer home games.
Still we shouldn't be paying more than PSU students for big time DI football. Even if you dropped tickets by $3 a game (200 for students instead of 260), I'm sure you'd see a massive increase in student attendance.
We've been at this discussion (or variations on a theme) many times over the last three years. For some background reading on ebilmes and my thoughts, and those of others on eLynah, see:
http://cornellsun.com/node/30396
http://cornellsun.com/node/32726
http://elf.elynah.com/read.php?1,131245
http://elf.elynah.com/read.php?1,132452
http://elf.elynah.com/read.php?1,147616
http://elf.elynah.com/read.php?1,154714
http://elf.elynah.com/read.php?1,156069
Quote from: ajh258My question from the beginning was: can we get the players for our style of play? We obviously cannot recruit Red Wings players, so that argument is moot. As I said, all the big, talented guys who work well for our style are being recruited by those western schools, which we cannot compete with due to our financial and academic constraints. Is the problem that we simply cannot pass? Is the problem recruiting? Schafer has had many years to figure these problems out and we still do not have a sustained NCAA tourney presence.
It seems short-sighted to say that "all the big, talented guys who work well for our style are being recruited by those western schools" (and, by implication, that we can't successfully recruit any of them), seemingly on the basis of one rebuilding year in which we still played in the conference championship game. We've had those guys before, and we'll have them again.
Quote from: Al DeFlorioQuote from: ugarteQuote from: ajh258Is it a short term downturn? Again, it depends on what your definition of success and downturns are and, as mentioned before, it seems that your standards are just not as high.
The level of success that you seem to expect hasn't existed at Cornell, with the exception of one three-year stretch, since before your parents met each other. So this is either a short-term downturn or the middle of an INCREDIBLY long shitshow that will continue forever.
Thank you for adding some much-needed sense to this ridiculous discussion. Anyone who thinks Cornell is going to go out today and find another Ned Harkness who will recreate 1967-1970 is hallucinatory. As someone asked above--and was never answered--who is this savior Cornell is magically going to hire? Jerry York?
We really only need a few stands of Ned's DNA and a little patience. In fact we can make him better, Super Ned! But let's keep very careful control of this IP and never let it near Cambridge or New Haven. Or perhaps we could license it and solve our Endowment problems. In Ithaca did Great Neds spawn/ A stately hockey palace decree.
Quote from: TowerroadQuote from: Al DeFlorioQuote from: ugarteQuote from: ajh258Is it a short term downturn? Again, it depends on what your definition of success and downturns are and, as mentioned before, it seems that your standards are just not as high.
The level of success that you seem to expect hasn't existed at Cornell, with the exception of one three-year stretch, since before your parents met each other. So this is either a short-term downturn or the middle of an INCREDIBLY long shitshow that will continue forever.
Thank you for adding some much-needed sense to this ridiculous discussion. Anyone who thinks Cornell is going to go out today and find another Ned Harkness who will recreate 1967-1970 is hallucinatory. As someone asked above--and was never answered--who is this savior Cornell is magically going to hire? Jerry York?
We really only need a few stands of Ned's DNA and a little patience. In fact we can make him better, Super Ned! But let's keep very careful control of this IP and never let it near Cambridge or New Haven. Or perhaps we could license it and solve our Endowment problems. In Ithaca did Great Neds spawn/ A stately hockey palace decree.
I don't know, but I'm concerned that a few strands were left at Union.
{sigh}