ELynah Forum

9 minutes before broadcast, Ivy Digital is AWOL.

Quote from: Trotsky9 minutes before broadcast, Ivy Digital is AWOL.

9 minutes before broadcast, WHCU is still broadcasting football. 27-6 Dartmouth. 6:19 left in the game, which means you probably won't get anything until 7:15 at the earliest, unless they have some other backup plan in place.

Yeah, they're pre-empting the hockey game not just for Ivy League football, but for a game in which Cornell is down 27-6. Sigh.

Last night RPITV fantastic, tonight's broadcast from Union horrendous.  Reminds me of redcast.

Quote from: flyersgolfLast night RPITV fantastic, tonight's broadcast from Union horrendous.  Reminds me of redcast.

What is the Union broadcast URL?

http://www.unionathletics.tv/amember/plugins/protect/new_rewrite/login.php?v=-1,126&url=/mhockey/mhockey131109/index.html

Thx!

And we're up now.  12 minutes in, scoreless, 2 apiece shots.

Quote from: Kyle Roseyou probably won't get anything until 7:15 at the earliest

You got it within about 5 seconds! (The cutover was at about 7:10 remaining).

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: Kyle Roseyou probably won't get anything until 7:15 at the earliest

You got it within about 5 seconds! (The cutover was at about 7:10 remaining).

A stopped clock and all that. ;-)

Jason with the awesome, "Cornell losing to Dartmouth... (pause)... earlier this afternoon." Truer words ne'er spoke. :-)

On a side note: Fox Sports Pacific has the quinnipiac - yale game

Many of us have observed and commented on what the Union broadcasters started talking about, I paraphrase -Cornell's lack of creativity and inability to create scoring chances even though they cycle and control the puck.  And the inability of some players to make quick decisions and anticipate what their teammates are doing.  It must be really glaring if those two guys even notice it.  IMHO Cornell's best game of the year was their first vs. UNO.

Just want to point out, we're a miracle comeback away from getting swept. Looks like both my hockey teams are going to suck again this year.

It's one thing to lose (poorly,) but it's an entirely different thing to lose like this.  They aren't as talented as the other players in the league, that much has been clear for some time, but to not even try?  These kids are an embarrassment.

Does anyone actually think this team is good?  This team is 0-6 or 1-5 without Iles.

EDIT: Sorry, will expand so this isn't dismissed as a troll post.  Cornell gets badly outshot almost every game.  They show no semblance of offensive skill except on the top line or two, but the top lines of other teams are faster and more coordinated.  The PP looks awful, especially when you consider it's the five best players we have.  It is absurd that a team with so much talent has been outshot this season 2-to-1.  And people here thought it was good that Yale won last year?  Cornell isn't even a top team in its conference; it can forget about competing nationally.

I just got back from Schafer's postgamer, and here's what he had to say:

http://youtu.be/9LOuIgwVQkI

Union reacton:
Bennett: http://t.co/fCFRmsRDgT
Gostisbehere, Ikkala: http://t.co/linPEr87Nr

Quote from: unionhockeynewsI just got back from Schafer's postgamer, and here's what he had to say:

http://youtu.be/9LOuIgwVQkI

Union reacton:
Bennett: http://t.co/fCFRmsRDgT
Gostisbehere, Ikkala: http://t.co/linPEr87Nr

Schafer was obviously ticked-off at his team's effort, and who can blame him.  The boys are in for a tough week ahead.

Quote from: ScrewBUIt's one thing to lose (poorly,) but it's an entirely different thing to lose like this.  They aren't as talented as the other players in the league, that much has been clear for some time, but to not even try?  These kids are an embarrassment.

This, on the other hand, is a troll post.

Quote from: scoop85

Quote from: unionhockeynewsI just got back from Schafer's postgamer, and here's what he had to say:

http://youtu.be/9LOuIgwVQkI

Union reacton:
Bennett: http://t.co/fCFRmsRDgT
Gostisbehere, Ikkala: http://t.co/linPEr87Nr

Schafer was obviously ticked-off at his team's effort, and who can blame him.  The boys are in for a tough week ahead.

How many times are we going to fall for the effort being the problem?  At this point it has to be something else.

Quote from: BearLoverHow many times are we going to fall for the effort being the problem?  At this point it has to be something else.

Not sure what you are referring to.  Talent?  There are 7 NHL draft picks on the roster.  Coaching ability?  Schafer is the most successful active ECAC coach.  Inflexibility?  That seems to be the gist of a lot of the comments for the last few seasons.  Maybe it is a genuine problem.

This was an awful weekend, though going into it I would have taken a point given that it might be the 1-2 teams in the conference.  Despite Clarkson (edit: and, it turns out, SLU too) playing well to start the year, next weekend there is no such excuse.  Those are teams we ought to beat, even on the road.

Quote from: BearLoverDoes anyone actually think this team is good?  This team is 0-6 or 1-5 without Iles.

EDIT: Sorry, will expand so this isn't dismissed as a troll post.  Cornell gets badly outshot almost every game.  They show no semblance of offensive skill except on the top line or two, but the top lines of other teams are faster and more coordinated.  The PP looks awful, especially when you consider it's the five best players we have.  It is absurd that a team with so much talent has been outshot this season 2-to-1.  And people here thought it was good that Yale won last year?  Cornell isn't even a top team in its conference; it can forget about competing nationally.

I won't dismiss this as a troll post.  It's warranted to ask if we're a good team given the bad start.

We've been outshot 177-114 through 6 games, or 29.5 - 19.0.  That is astoundingly poor.  To lend perspective, last year's squad was outshot 995-939 in 34 games, or 29.3 - 27.6.

There is offensive skill on the squad: Ferlin of course, Mowrey, Ryan, Lowry, and Bardreau when he's available.  McCarron's production is a pleasant shock (which may not last), but there is little chemistry (again, not to beat an injured horse, except for Bardreau, who has instant chemistry with nearly everyone).

The three areas we identified at the beginning of the season most in need of improvement were: cutting down on the dumb penalties, improving the special teams, and holding leads in the third.  The penalties are down (the UNO series had a lot of PIM, but they weren't the head-in-rectum stuff they were doing last year).  The special teams suck, no improvement there.  The third period lead protection actually has been there -- in fact, twice they have come back to rescue points.

On the other hand, the evaporation of the offense (really, of the entire puck possession part of the game) swamps all the improvements and leaves them just as bad or worse off.  They are tracking exactly like last season (http://www.tbrw.info/weekly_Updates/cornell_Color_All_Games.html) thus far.

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: BearLoverHow many times are we going to fall for the effort being the problem?  At this point it has to be something else.

Not sure what you are referring to.  Talent?  There are 7 NHL draft picks on the roster.  Coaching ability?  Schafer is the most successful active ECAC coach.  Inflexibility?  That seems to be the gist of a lot of the comments for the last few seasons.  Maybe it is a genuine problem.

This was an awful weekend, though going into it I would have taken a point given that it might be the 1-2 teams in the conference.  Despite Clarkson (edit: and, it turns out, SLU too) playing well to start the year, next weekend there is no such excuse.  Those are teams we ought to beat, even on the road.

I don't know what I'm referring to either.  But I'm confident effort is not the problem.  Talent isn't the problem either.  Schafer is the most successful ECAC coach...but no one is successful forever.  This goes hand-in-hand with Cornell's inflexibility and inability to adapt to a league that won't sit back and let Cornell push them around anymore.  Further, I've never seen a team where the 3rd and 4th lines generate literally zero offense. But it's the defense, too, that leads to so few goals; other than Ryan, does anyone on defense ever show up on the score sheet?  Like, EVER?

Quote from: BearLoverDoes anyone actually think this team is good?

I most definitely don't

It's a good team that's very thin up the middle, and Bardreau being out really throws a wrench in the works. When RPI runs away with the regular season at least, that tie will look a bit more impressive. The Union game, however, was a mess, and hopefully not the start of a trend.

Quote from: CowbellGuyIt's a good team that's very thin up the middle, and Bardreau being out really throws a wrench in the works. When RPI runs away with the regular season at least, that tie will look a bit more impressive. The Union game, however, was a mess, and hopefully not the start of a trend.

Good teams don't get outshot as badly as we do even strength. Unless they get super lucky like the Maple Leafs. Possible over the course of 40ish games? Sure. Likely? Nope. I doubt we're going to win a ton this year.

It's November 10th.

Also, as we learned last year, Bardreau is a really, really important piece of this team.

But mostly, it's November 10th.

Quote from: DafatoneIt's November 10th.

Also, as we learned last year, Bardreau is a really, really important piece of this team.

But mostly, it's November 10th.

Agreed; the team is still finding is stride and chemistry. This year we have a large freshman class who isn't used to playing a game one night and turn around and play another game the next night. Bardreau has been out again which I am sure puts a psychological toll on the returning group after a season like the last.
There is a spark of hope for a decent season; once Bardreau is back and healthy and the freshman are a bit more accustomed to the NCAA level I believe that we may see something like the classic Cornell Hockey we missed last season.

Quote from: unionhockeynewsI just got back from Schafer's postgamer, and here's what he had to say:

http://youtu.be/9LOuIgwVQkI

Union reacton:
Bennett: http://t.co/fCFRmsRDgT
Gostisbehere, Ikkala: http://t.co/linPEr87Nr

"A good carpenter does not blame his tools"

Quote from: BearLoverI'm confident effort is not the problem.  Talent isn't the problem either.  Schafer is the most successful ECAC coach...but no one is successful forever.  This goes hand-in-hand with Cornell's inflexibility and inability to adapt to a league that won't sit back and let Cornell push them around anymore.

One of the quickest ways to get flame roasted around here is to doubt a coach, one of our own, with such a successful history. But what BearLover says has an eerie deja-vu vibe that I remember from Richie Moran's last few years. His last teams had a similar pattern.  It's worth thinking about.

Watching Union's ascent, and seeing the press conferences, I really like Rick Bennett.  He reminds me a lot of another coach from the Capital District that holds a special place in our hearts.

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: BearLoverHow many times are we going to fall for the effort being the problem?  At this point it has to be something else.

Not sure what you are referring to.  Talent?  There are 7 NHL draft picks on the roster.  Coaching ability?  Schafer is the most successful active ECAC coach.  Inflexibility?  That seems to be the gist of a lot of the comments for the last few seasons.  Maybe it is a genuine problem.

This was an awful weekend, though going into it I would have taken a point given that it might be the 1-2 teams in the conference.  Despite Clarkson (edit: and, it turns out, SLU too) playing well to start the year, next weekend there is no such excuse.  Those are teams we ought to beat, even on the road.

With Clarkson at 11, and SLU at 17 (USCHO), these aren't gimme games. Especially on the road, with no band.::panic::

Quote from: Jim Hyla

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: BearLoverHow many times are we going to fall for the effort being the problem?  At this point it has to be something else.

Not sure what you are referring to.  Talent?  There are 7 NHL draft picks on the roster.  Coaching ability?  Schafer is the most successful active ECAC coach.  Inflexibility?  That seems to be the gist of a lot of the comments for the last few seasons.  Maybe it is a genuine problem.

This was an awful weekend, though going into it I would have taken a point given that it might be the 1-2 teams in the conference.  Despite Clarkson (edit: and, it turns out, SLU too) playing well to start the year, next weekend there is no such excuse.  Those are teams we ought to beat, even on the road.

With Clarkson at 11, and SLU at 17 (USCHO), these aren't gimme games. Especially on the road, with no band.::panic::

Nice to see we're still five spots above Union.::rolleyes::

Quote from: marty

Quote from: Jim Hyla

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: BearLoverHow many times are we going to fall for the effort being the problem?  At this point it has to be something else.

Not sure what you are referring to.  Talent?  There are 7 NHL draft picks on the roster.  Coaching ability?  Schafer is the most successful active ECAC coach.  Inflexibility?  That seems to be the gist of a lot of the comments for the last few seasons.  Maybe it is a genuine problem.

This was an awful weekend, though going into it I would have taken a point given that it might be the 1-2 teams in the conference.  Despite Clarkson (edit: and, it turns out, SLU too) playing well to start the year, next weekend there is no such excuse.  Those are teams we ought to beat, even on the road.

With Clarkson at 11, and SLU at 17 (USCHO), these aren't gimme games. Especially on the road, with no band.::panic::

Nice to see we're still five spots above Union.::rolleyes::

How the hell is this team ranked?

Quote from: css228

Quote from: marty

Quote from: Jim Hyla

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: BearLoverHow many times are we going to fall for the effort being the problem?  At this point it has to be something else.

Not sure what you are referring to.  Talent?  There are 7 NHL draft picks on the roster.  Coaching ability?  Schafer is the most successful active ECAC coach.  Inflexibility?  That seems to be the gist of a lot of the comments for the last few seasons.  Maybe it is a genuine problem.

This was an awful weekend, though going into it I would have taken a point given that it might be the 1-2 teams in the conference.  Despite Clarkson (edit: and, it turns out, SLU too) playing well to start the year, next weekend there is no such excuse.  Those are teams we ought to beat, even on the road.

With Clarkson at 11, and SLU at 17 (USCHO), these aren't gimme games. Especially on the road, with no band.::panic::

Nice to see we're still five spots above Union.::rolleyes::

How the hell is this team ranked?

Do we really need to explain to you how polls work?

Quote from: KeithK

Quote from: css228

Quote from: marty

Quote from: Jim Hyla

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: BearLoverHow many times are we going to fall for the effort being the problem?  At this point it has to be something else.

Not sure what you are referring to.  Talent?  There are 7 NHL draft picks on the roster.  Coaching ability?  Schafer is the most successful active ECAC coach.  Inflexibility?  That seems to be the gist of a lot of the comments for the last few seasons.  Maybe it is a genuine problem.

This was an awful weekend, though going into it I would have taken a point given that it might be the 1-2 teams in the conference.  Despite Clarkson (edit: and, it turns out, SLU too) playing well to start the year, next weekend there is no such excuse.  Those are teams we ought to beat, even on the road.

With Clarkson at 11, and SLU at 17 (USCHO), these aren't gimme games. Especially on the road, with no band.::panic::

Nice to see we're still five spots above Union.::rolleyes::

How the hell is this team ranked?

Do we really need to explain to you how polls work?

No but you need to explain to me how there aren't at least 20 teams that the voters consider better than us. We're kinda not very good at hockey.

Quote from: css228

Quote from: KeithK

Quote from: css228

Quote from: marty

Quote from: Jim Hyla

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: BearLoverHow many times are we going to fall for the effort being the problem?  At this point it has to be something else.

Not sure what you are referring to.  Talent?  There are 7 NHL draft picks on the roster.  Coaching ability?  Schafer is the most successful active ECAC coach.  Inflexibility?  That seems to be the gist of a lot of the comments for the last few seasons.  Maybe it is a genuine problem.

This was an awful weekend, though going into it I would have taken a point given that it might be the 1-2 teams in the conference.  Despite Clarkson (edit: and, it turns out, SLU too) playing well to start the year, next weekend there is no such excuse.  Those are teams we ought to beat, even on the road.

With Clarkson at 11, and SLU at 17 (USCHO), these aren't gimme games. Especially on the road, with no band.::panic::

Nice to see we're still five spots above Union.::rolleyes::

How the hell is this team ranked?

Do we really need to explain to you how polls work?

No but you need to explain to me how there aren't at least 20 teams that the voters consider better than us. We're kinda not very good at hockey.

Well, one explanation is that Ken Schott, the Schnectady Gazette, Union hockey reporter, voted us 19 and didn't give a vote to Union. Overall there are 6 ECAC teams ranked, best conference in NCAA. So maybe they think we're the sixth best team in the ECAC. Hard to argue too much with that.

well in the past we only had the reputation of the program as an end of season contender to prop us up in the polls

but now that we have 3-4 real rabid Chicken Little's flooding the message boards with calls for the coach to be sacked, the team identity to be inverted, and predictions of the end of the world (we might as well just quit now, maybe make some space for Title IX compliance)... well now we practically look like a mid pack WCHA team!  You can only understand how confused the pollsters must be!

keep up the bellyaching and armchair PP quarterbacking, we will be in the top 10 despite a .500 record before you know it!

Quote from: Cornell95...we have 3-4 real rabid Chicken Little's flooding the message boards with calls for the coach to be sacked, the team identity to be inverted, and predictions of the end of the world ...

keep up the bellyaching and armchair PP quarterbacking,

::cheer::::cheer::::cheer::

Wow. Spectacular hyperbole.  I get it.

But it is a discussion board after all.  Do you have any refuting observations?  Pour some sugar on me. I really need it.

I was at both games this weekend,::uhoh:: Were you?

Quote from: TrotskyDespite Clarkson (edit: and, it turns out, SLU too) playing well to start the year, next weekend there is no such excuse.  Those are teams we ought to beat, even on the road.

Has anyone who started following Cornell hockey in the 20th century ever said that about a North Country trip before? ::wow::

Quote from: jtwcornell91

Quote from: TrotskyDespite Clarkson (edit: and, it turns out, SLU too) playing well to start the year, next weekend there is no such excuse.  Those are teams we ought to beat, even on the road.

Has anyone who started following Cornell hockey in the 20th century ever said that about a North Country trip before? ::wow::

Has anyone else ever felt that it was true?

Quote from: TimV

Quote from: Cornell95...we have 3-4 real rabid Chicken Little's flooding the message boards with calls for the coach to be sacked, the team identity to be inverted, and predictions of the end of the world ...

keep up the bellyaching and armchair PP quarterbacking,

::cheer::::cheer::::cheer::

Wow. Spectacular hyperbole.  I get it.

But it is a discussion board after all.  Do you have any refuting observations?  Pour some sugar on me. I really need it.

I was at both games this weekend,::uhoh:: Were you?

I was at both games.  Although we could have easily loss to RPI, I thought we looked pretty good for much of the game.  I think our breakouts, particularly ability to pass while breaking out, is much better than in years past. It's certainly not yet perfect, and if we didn't have Ryan we'd be a lot more trouble. However I feel a lot more secure then I did even last year.   Union, Yale, and now Q, have a particularly aggressive forechecking which gives us problems. But I think you have to say that our style of play has really progressed dramatically compared to even 5 years ago.  Because of that I am a lot more optimistic than many of the posters.

Our season is still young, and many of the teams that we are having trouble with, have played a lot more games than we have.  Our Ivy League restrictions mean we have to wait a few weeks before we can really assess the team.  Having said that, I certainly don't think that this coming weekend is an easy schedule.

Quote from: css228

Quote from: KeithK

Quote from: css228

Quote from: marty

Quote from: Jim Hyla

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: BearLoverHow many times are we going to fall for the effort being the problem?  At this point it has to be something else.

Not sure what you are referring to.  Talent?  There are 7 NHL draft picks on the roster.  Coaching ability?  Schafer is the most successful active ECAC coach.  Inflexibility?  That seems to be the gist of a lot of the comments for the last few seasons.  Maybe it is a genuine problem.

This was an awful weekend, though going into it I would have taken a point given that it might be the 1-2 teams in the conference.  Despite Clarkson (edit: and, it turns out, SLU too) playing well to start the year, next weekend there is no such excuse.  Those are teams we ought to beat, even on the road.

With Clarkson at 11, and SLU at 17 (USCHO), these aren't gimme games. Especially on the road, with no band.::panic::

Nice to see we're still five spots above Union.::rolleyes::

How the hell is this team ranked?

Do we really need to explain to you how polls work?

No but you need to explain to me how there aren't at least 20 teams that the voters consider better than us. We're kinda not very good at hockey.

Most of the voters have not been watching and analuzing Cornell's play as closely as we have. Here's what pollsters see.  A team that was ranked to start the season (not surprising due to program reputation and quality of roster) has lost one game at home to last year's national runner up (a 9-1-1 team) and one game on the road against another good team. This hardly screams bottom feeder. Now maybe the details of the games (shot totals, special teams, etc.) point to big problems but the voter isn't really seeing that detail when he's ranking all of college hockey. That's why poll rankings almost always have a history. If you start high you need to play poorly for a while before it's reflected strongly in the rankings.

Also keep in mind that there are only 59 teams in D1. #19 in the poll is a long ways down. It's basivally saying we're a little better than middle of the pack. That hardly seems like a stretch.

Quote from: Jim Hyla

Quote from: TimV

Quote from: Cornell95...we have 3-4 real rabid Chicken Little's flooding the message boards with calls for the coach to be sacked, the team identity to be inverted, and predictions of the end of the world ...

keep up the bellyaching and armchair PP quarterbacking,

::cheer::::cheer::::cheer::

Wow. Spectacular hyperbole.  I get it.

But it is a discussion board after all.  Do you have any refuting observations?  Pour some sugar on me. I really need it.

I was at both games this weekend,::uhoh:: Were you?

I was at both games.  Although we could have easily loss to RPI, I thought we looked pretty good for much of the game.  I think our breakouts, particularly ability to pass while breaking out, is much better than in years past. It's certainly not yet perfect, and if we didn't have Ryan we'd be a lot more trouble. However I feel a lot more secure then I did even last year.   Union, Yale, and now Q, have a particularly aggressive forechecking which gives us problems. But I think you have to say that our style of play has really progressed dramatically compared to even 5 years ago.  Because of that I am a lot more optimistic than many of the posters.

Our season is still young, and many of the teams that we are having trouble with, have played a lot more games than we have.  Our Ivy League restrictions mean we have to wait a few weeks before we can really assess the team.  Having said that, I certainly don't think that this coming weekend is an easy schedule.

I too am optimistic, but would like to see the Freshmen get on the score sheet.  We certainly need more depth of scoring, and guys like Buckles will need to produce to keep some pressure off the top two lines.

Quote from: Jim Hyla

Quote from: jtwcornell91

Quote from: TrotskyDespite Clarkson (edit: and, it turns out, SLU too) playing well to start the year, next weekend there is no such excuse.  Those are teams we ought to beat, even on the road.

Has anyone who started following Cornell hockey in the 20th century ever said that about a North Country trip before? ::wow::

Has anyone else ever felt that it was true?

It hasn't been a house of horrors (http://www.tbrw.info/?/games/cornell_in_North_Country_Icon.htm) for a while.  Indeed we have only been swept there once (2008) in the last 11 trips, and the current seniors have lost there just once (3-1-2).

Figure the following are the emotional offsets to the expected points on a given weekend:

+4 Ecstasy
+3 Exuberance
+2 Merriment
+1 Contentment
0 Ambivalence
-1 Melancholy
-2 Gloom
-3 Anguish
-4 Torment

So, for this weekend:

4 Merriment
3 Contentment
2 Ambivalence
1 Melancholy
0 Gloom

And looking ahead (expectations subject to change):

Opponents, Expectation (Actual), Reaction
Prn/Qpc, 3 (2), Melancholy
at RPI/Uni, 1 (1), Ambivalence
at Clk/SLU, 2
Brn/Yal, 3
at Hvd/Drt, 2
SLU/Clk, 3
at Yal/Brn, 2
Col/at Col, 3
Uni/RPI, 2
at Qpc/Prn, 2
Drt/Hvd, 3

Quote from: Jim Hyla

Quote from: TimV

Quote from: Cornell95...we have 3-4 real rabid Chicken Little's flooding the message boards with calls for the coach to be sacked, the team identity to be inverted, and predictions of the end of the world ...

keep up the bellyaching and armchair PP quarterbacking,

::cheer::::cheer::::cheer::

Wow. Spectacular hyperbole.  I get it.

But it is a discussion board after all.  Do you have any refuting observations?  Pour some sugar on me. I really need it.

I was at both games this weekend,::uhoh:: Were you?

I was at both games.  Although we could have easily loss to RPI, I thought we looked pretty good for much of the game.  I think our breakouts, particularly ability to pass while breaking out, is much better than in years past. It's certainly not yet perfect, and if we didn't have Ryan we'd be a lot more trouble. However I feel a lot more secure then I did even last year.   Union, Yale, and now Q, have a particularly aggressive forechecking which gives us problems. But I think you have to say that our style of play has really progressed dramatically compared to even 5 years ago.  Because of that I am a lot more optimistic than many of the posters.

Our season is still young, and many of the teams that we are having trouble with, have played a lot more games than we have.  Our Ivy League restrictions mean we have to wait a few weeks before we can really assess the team.  Having said that, I certainly don't think that this coming weekend is an easy schedule.

One positive that I saw on Friday and in the first period on Saturday was Cornell's ability to control the puck and limit the chances of the opposition.  They couldn't finish on Friday and that was maddening.  On Saturday what I saw was Union taking it to us the way we had to them as the game wore on.

The offense needs to get going or this will be a rough season to watch.  What I am hoping for is that the team wakes up soon and doesn't slumber until two weeks before the ECAC playoffs begin.

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: Jim Hyla

Quote from: jtwcornell91

Quote from: TrotskyDespite Clarkson (edit: and, it turns out, SLU too) playing well to start the year, next weekend there is no such excuse.  Those are teams we ought to beat, even on the road.

Has anyone who started following Cornell hockey in the 20th century ever said that about a North Country trip before? ::wow::

Has anyone else ever felt that it was true?

It hasn't been a house of horrors (http://www.tbrw.info/?/games/cornell_in_North_Country_Icon.htm) for a while.  Indeed we have only been swept there once (2008) in the last 11 trips, and the current seniors have lost there just once (3-1-2).

Figure the following are the emotional offsets to the expected points on a given weekend:

+4 Ecstasy
+3 Exuberance
+2 Merriment
+1 Contentment
0 Ambivalence
-1 Melancholy
-2 Gloom
-3 Anguish
-4 Torment

So, for this weekend:

4 Merriment
3 Contentment
2 Ambivalence
1 Melancholy
0 Gloom

And looking ahead (expectations subject to change):

Opponents, Expectation (Actual), Reaction
Prn/Qpc, 3 (2), Melancholy
at RPI/Uni, 1 (1), Ambivalence
at Clk/SLU, 2
Brn/Yal, 3
at Hvd/Drt, 2
SLU/Clk, 3
at Yal/Brn, 2
Col/at Col, 3
Uni/RPI, 2
at Qpc/Prn, 2
Drt/Hvd, 3

So here is what some people think of the NC trip. (http://www.ecachockey.com/men/2013-14/Weekly_Awards/20131211_M_Weekly_Awards)

That SLU Rookie scored as many goals in one game as our whole team did in the last three games.  But we're all still optimistic , right? Right???::cheer::

Thanks Marty.  I needed that.  Can I call you whenever I start to get nervous?  24-7?::scared::

My comments from the Union game revolve around the general flow of it. The 1st period was just awful hockey to watch on both sides.  Very little action took place and the puck spent the majority of the period pinned along the boards.  Neither team really had much going on. As a fan, you know that there will be stretches were not a whole lot goes right, and you wait for some sort of spark to pull them out of it and start generating some open-ice movement and possessions that generate scoring opportunities.  That happened for Union, not Cornell.  The entire game, when the puck was in CU's offensive zone, it was in two places: 5 feet from the blue line or in one of the corners. I'd love to see the shot sheet, because I can't think of more than 2-3 shots that came from anywhere near the circles.  Ryan's shot is really good right now, but the forwards are failing to generate any decent opportunities.

The lead-up to Union's 2nd goal was a textbook cycle. They controlled both corners for at least 30 seconds, and it had us running way out of position, and ended with a perfect set-up for the 2nd goal.  It's something I remember CU executing countless times.

On the plus side, Andy Iles performed well.

Quote from: Jim HylaSo here is what some people think of the NC trip. (http://www.ecachockey.com/men/2013-14/Weekly_Awards/20131211_M_Weekly_Awards)

The only thing I get out of that is Matt Carey looks like a douche.

Quote from: Cornell95well in the past we only had the reputation of the program as an end of season contender to prop us up in the polls

but now that we have 3-4 real rabid Chicken Little's flooding the message boards with calls for the coach to be sacked, the team identity to be inverted, and predictions of the end of the world (we might as well just quit now, maybe make some space for Title IX compliance)... well now we practically look like a mid pack WCHA team!  You can only understand how confused the pollsters must be!

keep up the bellyaching and armchair PP quarterbacking, we will be in the top 10 despite a .500 record before you know it!

All of the numbers, such as shooting percentage (14.0%), power play shooting percentage (28.1%!) and PDO (Shooting Percentage + Save Percentage, Which currently stands at 1044 and regresses to the mean of 1000 HARD) indicate we've been lucky. As I said we play only 40 or so games, so we can possibly defy the percentages. But everyone should realize we're incredibly lucky not to be 1-5 right now. They have not played a single game of good hockey yet and have been bailed out mostly by luck. If we continue to play this way, it's going to be another long year, and we're probably going to miss out on a home playoff series again. That said I'd love to be wrong and see the odds defied OR BETTER YET see this team actually play good hockey and dominate the run of play. All I've been saying is that what we've been watching is not good hockey, and it is not a path to future success. We have been playing poorly. The results may not reflect it, but the process has been bad. I'm not going to blindly say this is a good team that should have good results when all the evidence points in another direction. I see this team and I see all of the problems that manifested themselves last year ready to pop up again. Last year we were a 3-2-1 team after 3 weekends that stole a few games where we got dominated, with unsustainable shooting percentages (particularly on the power play) and good goaltending. I learn from history. It doesn't matter how you dominate the run of play. The Red Wings and Kings have great Corsi + Fenwick numbers and play with puck possession, cycling and being strong in the corners, while the Blackhawks are about speed and skill. The key is that long term success correlates best with puck possession because unlike goals which are rare and random events, puck possession is a repeatable phenomenon. "The System" is irrelevant except in that it is not being executed well enough to win consistently, and hasn't been for most of the past four years.

We'll have company at MSG. Stop me if this doesn't sound incredibly familiar.

From http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2013/11/13_second_thoughts.php

QuoteLong story short, BU just never has the puck. That obviously makes it very difficult to win at hockey.
...
Even-strength shots in the game — BC put eight on Matt O'Connor on its four power plays — were therefore an astonishing 32-6. That's six shots in 39:31 of even-strength play, and for a team with BU's on-paper talent, that simply isn't anywhere near good enough.
...
The problem for BU is that this is no emergent issue. It has, in fact, been there since the start of the season. Sure, it won three of its first four games, but when you take power-play shots out of the equation, it mustered more than 20 just once.
...
In his opening comments following his first-ever game against BC, Quinn actually summed it up perfectly.

"If you're going to create offense, you've got to move the puck quickly, you've got to be ready," he said. "When the puck comes to you, you can't let it surprise you. You've got to be ready to shoot it, and we're not there yet. We're not there yet."

I hear that, BU.

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: BearLoverHow many times are we going to fall for the effort being the problem?  At this point it has to be something else.

Not sure what you are referring to.  Talent?  There are 7 NHL draft picks on the roster.  Coaching ability?  Schafer is the most successful active ECAC coach.  Inflexibility?  That seems to be the gist of a lot of the comments for the last few seasons.  Maybe it is a genuine problem.

This was an awful weekend, though going into it I would have taken a point given that it might be the 1-2 teams in the conference.  Despite Clarkson (edit: and, it turns out, SLU too) playing well to start the year, next weekend there is no such excuse.  Those are teams we ought to beat, even on the road.

I don't really think you can call Schafer the most successful active ECAC coach when you got a guy that rebuilt a team, and just won a national championship... Schafer is the Lindy Ruff of college hockey. Calling him more successful than Keith Allain would be like calling Jeff Fischer more successful than Sean Payton because he's coached longer.

Quote from: cuhockey93I don't really think you can call Schafer the most successful active ECAC coach when you got a guy that rebuilt a team, and just won a national championship... Schafer is the Lindy Ruff of college hockey. Calling him more successful than Keith Allain would be like calling Jeff Fischer more successful than Sean Payton because he's coached longer.

5 ECAC titles (and 10 appearances in the ECAC championship game) in 18 seasons is not merely longevity.  Prior to the 2013 annus mirabilis' 7, the ECAC had combined for 15 NCAA wins in the prior 17 seasons: 8 by Schafer and 7 by the rest of the 11 teams in the conference combined.

Yale, Quinnipiac and Union have all had wonderful short runs: 12 NCAA wins in the last 4 seasons (6 Yale, 3 Union, 3 Quinnipiac), and this challenges Schafer's claim as the most accomplished active coach.  We'll see what happens next -- if Allain, Bennett and Pecknold continue to dominate then you have a point.  If Cornell returns to their form under Schafer, wins ECAC titles, and challenges for late runs in the NCAAs, then he's still the It Girl of the ECAC.

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: cuhockey93I don't really think you can call Schafer the most successful active ECAC coach when you got a guy that rebuilt a team, and just won a national championship... Schafer is the Lindy Ruff of college hockey. Calling him more successful than Keith Allain would be like calling Jeff Fischer more successful than Sean Payton because he's coached longer.

5 ECAC titles (and 10 appearances in the ECAC championship game) in 18 seasons is not merely longevity.  Prior to the 2013 annus mirabilis' 7, the ECAC had combined for 15 NCAA wins in the prior 17 seasons: 8 by Schafer and 7 by the rest of the 11 teams in the conference combined.

Yale, Quinnipiac and Union have all had wonderful short runs: 12 NCAA wins in the last 4 seasons (6 Yale, 3 Union, 3 Quinnipiac), and this challenges Schafer's claim as the most accomplished active coach.  We'll see what happens next -- if Allain, Bennett and Pecknold continue to dominate then you have a point.  If Cornell returns to their form under Schafer, wins ECAC titles, and challenges for late runs in the NCAAs, then he's still the It Girl of the ECAC.

Maybe so, but I give Allain credit for the speed and high point of his turnaround, particularly at a school without any real history of success. When both coaches retire, sure, that's when you make the final evaluation but that's just deflecting on cu93's point. As of today? Hard to argue that Allain hasn't been better and I don't think that disparages or diminishes Schafer's success in any way,

Quote from: ugarteI give Allain credit for the speed and high point of his turnaround, particularly at a school without any real history of success.

Oh heck yeah, it's been amazing, and even if they crater he'll always have the ring.  All I'm trying to say is that there have been times during Schafer's tenure when it looked like another ECAC team was laying down a foundation to eclipse Cornell as the consistent NCAA contender (Vermont, Harvard, SLU, Clarkson, Princeton) and each time those teams fell off the map.  What's unusual with the current situation is they actually won, so they may be here to stay.  If your window of comparison begins with 2013, then Cornell is no better than Brown.  If it begins in 2012, we do have an NCAA win during that time -- it isn't as if our current streak of mediocrity is long.

Everybody understands the only way to get the peasants to put down their pitchforks is to win.  To paraphrase Bill Parcells, "you are what your record says you are and Harvard sucks."

Quote from: ugarte

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: cuhockey93I don't really think you can call Schafer the most successful active ECAC coach when you got a guy that rebuilt a team, and just won a national championship... Schafer is the Lindy Ruff of college hockey. Calling him more successful than Keith Allain would be like calling Jeff Fischer more successful than Sean Payton because he's coached longer.

5 ECAC titles (and 10 appearances in the ECAC championship game) in 18 seasons is not merely longevity.  Prior to the 2013 annus mirabilis' 7, the ECAC had combined for 15 NCAA wins in the prior 17 seasons: 8 by Schafer and 7 by the rest of the 11 teams in the conference combined.

Yale, Quinnipiac and Union have all had wonderful short runs: 12 NCAA wins in the last 4 seasons (6 Yale, 3 Union, 3 Quinnipiac), and this challenges Schafer's claim as the most accomplished active coach.  We'll see what happens next -- if Allain, Bennett and Pecknold continue to dominate then you have a point.  If Cornell returns to their form under Schafer, wins ECAC titles, and challenges for late runs in the NCAAs, then he's still the It Girl of the ECAC.

Maybe so, but I give Allain credit for the speed and high point of his turnaround, particularly at a school without any real history of success. When both coaches retire, sure, that's when you make the final evaluation but that's just deflecting on cu93's point. As of today? Hard to argue that Allain hasn't been better and I don't think that disparages or diminishes Schafer's success in any way,

I think that, given the maximum tenure of a college hockey player is 4 years (let's leave the lax discussion out of this), the last 4 years should weigh much more heavily than what a team did before that. By that standard over the last 4 years we have 1 NCAA win vs an average of 4 for the above teams. It is hard to argue over the last 4 years that we were better than they were/are.

The coach deserves to be judged on his entire record when he/she retires. Until then old mantra "What have you done for me lately" was never truer, just ask Joe Torre or Terry Francona.

Quote from: TowerroadThe coach deserves to be judged on his entire record when he/she retires. Until then old mantra "What have you done for me lately" was never truer, just ask Joe Torre or Terry Francona.

While this is what happens, it doesn't necessarily mean that it's rational.  Presumably, you retain a coach if he gives you a better chance to attain your goals than any practical alternative.  The coach's entire record is useful for determining how his teams are likely to do in the future.

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: TowerroadThe coach deserves to be judged on his entire record when he/she retires. Until then old mantra "What have you done for me lately" was never truer, just ask Joe Torre or Terry Francona.

While this is what happens, it doesn't necessarily mean that it's rational.  Presumably, you retain a coach if he gives you a better chance to attain your goals than any practical alternative.  The coach's entire record is useful for determining how his teams are likely to do in the future.

That would be true if coaching, the game and the game environment were static. However that is not the case. The game is evolving with more emphasis on passing and skating and less on hitting. The league has adapted to the "the system" and the pool of talent has also evolved. Change is constant and so is the need to adapt.

Quote from: Towerroad

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: TowerroadThe coach deserves to be judged on his entire record when he/she retires. Until then old mantra "What have you done for me lately" was never truer, just ask Joe Torre or Terry Francona.

While this is what happens, it doesn't necessarily mean that it's rational.  Presumably, you retain a coach if he gives you a better chance to attain your goals than any practical alternative.  The coach's entire record is useful for determining how his teams are likely to do in the future.

That would be true if coaching, the game and the game environment were static. However that is not the case. The game is evolving with more emphasis on passing and skating and less on hitting. The league has adapted to the "the system" and the pool of talent has also evolved. Change is constant and so is the need to adapt.

In other words: past performance is not a reliable indicator of future results.

Quote from: TowerroadThat would be true if coaching, the game and the game environment were static. However that is not the case. The game is evolving with more emphasis on passing and skating and less on hitting. The league has adapted to the "the system" and the pool of talent has also evolved. Change is constant and so is the need to adapt.

It's still true, otherwise any time a team dropped from 1st to 3rd the coach would be fired because, well, obviously the game has passed him by.

There is not a big enough sample to determine whether (a) The System is outmoded, and (b) if so then Schafer can't adapt strategy and personnel to a more successful model.  Everything beyond saying "SSS" is at this point just applying a pre-existing narrative to a couple data points.

In other words: I don't know yet, and you don't either.

Quote from: Kyle RoseIn other words: past performance is not a reliable indicator of future results.

The expression is "past performance is no guarantee..."  Inductive reasoning is not proof, but it's still highly useful.

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: Kyle RoseIn other words: past performance is not a reliable indicator of future results.

The expression is "past performance is no guarantee..."  Inductive reasoning is not proof, but it's still highly useful.

While year-to-year returns in coaching are not independent variables, there are enough independent sub-variables that simply extrapolating past performance to future results is unreliable. That's the point of the aphorism: not that presently successful investments were uniformly distributed over the performance range in the past, but that not all successful investments continue to be successful in the future. Hence, "indicator" yet also "unreliable".

Yours is a fallacy that kills otherwise prudent investors all the time. Unfortunately for Cornell, there's no way to diversify their hockey coach holdings, so a different strategy is required.

Quote from: Kyle RoseYours is a fallacy that kills otherwise prudent investors all the time.

I don't think either of us is saying anything strong enough to warrant a term like "fallacy."  We are arguing differences in degree only -- when has a trend gone on long enough to constitute a preponderance of evidence, and when do past results "time out" in their relevance to predicting future results?  I'm arguing there is still too much noise to call any patterns we think we're seeing clear evidence.  If our coach was Bob Gaudet and we had one great season and then played great for a few games in the next season I would be arguing the same thing: that would be too early to think he'd magically turned the corner and become competent.

The longer we play like crap the more your argument gains credence, but a couple good weekends and this may be just another in the thousand and one false highs and lows in a season.

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: Kyle RoseYours is a fallacy that kills otherwise prudent investors all the time.

I don't think either of us is saying anything strong enough to warrant a term like "fallacy."  We are arguing differences in degree only -- when has a trend gone on long enough to constitute a preponderance of evidence, and when do past results "time out" in their relevance to predicting future results?  I'm arguing there is still too much noise to call any patterns we think we're seeing clear evidence.  If our coach was Bob Gaudet and we had one great season and then played great for a few games in the next season I would be arguing the same thing: that would be too early to think he'd magically turned the corner and become competent.

The longer we play like crap the more your argument gains credence, but a couple good weekends and this may be just another in the thousand and one false highs and lows in a season.

What, exactly, is my argument? I'm not calling for Schafer's head. I am, however, not being pollyanna-ish about his prospects for returning this team to the years of plenty when Cornell seemed to shit ECAC titles and fairly consistently roll over the rest of the league even in the years when they got knocked out of the playoffs by a hot Harvard team or some other one-off bad game. Those were the years when I expected Cornell to win nearly every league game, and when they didn't that disappointed me; now, I expect them to lose a lot of those games and am pleasantly surprised when they win. I vastly prefer the former, even when it means 2003's end.

I like the Parcells quote: it neatly sums up my opinion of the entire matter. How good or how bad I think you might be is irrelevant: you are as good as your record indicates. So, just win.

I don't give Schafer the benefit of the doubt. Maybe that's the key difference between the two schools of thought here.

Quote from: Kyle Rose

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: Kyle RoseYours is a fallacy that kills otherwise prudent investors all the time.

I don't think either of us is saying anything strong enough to warrant a term like "fallacy."  We are arguing differences in degree only -- when has a trend gone on long enough to constitute a preponderance of evidence, and when do past results "time out" in their relevance to predicting future results?  I'm arguing there is still too much noise to call any patterns we think we're seeing clear evidence.  If our coach was Bob Gaudet and we had one great season and then played great for a few games in the next season I would be arguing the same thing: that would be too early to think he'd magically turned the corner and become competent.

The longer we play like crap the more your argument gains credence, but a couple good weekends and this may be just another in the thousand and one false highs and lows in a season.

What, exactly, is my argument? I'm not calling for Schafer's head. I am, however, not being pollyanna-ish about his prospects for returning this team to the years of plenty when Cornell seemed to shit ECAC titles and fairly consistently roll over the rest of the league even in the years when they got knocked out of the playoffs by a hot Harvard team or some other one-off bad game. Those were the years when I expected Cornell to win nearly every league game, and when they didn't that disappointed me; now, I expect them to lose a lot of those games and am pleasantly surprised when they win. I vastly prefer the former, even when it means 2003's end.

I like the Parcells quote: it neatly sums up my opinion of the entire matter. How good or how bad I think you might be is irrelevant: you are as good as your record indicates. So, just win.

I don't give Schafer the benefit of the doubt. Maybe that's the key difference between the two schools of thought here.

You prefer 2003?  Then why the hell were you happy when Q and Yale made the finals last year?  That was the biggest slap in the face this program has ever gotten, and it signifies the other schools have passed us by.  More than that, though, it just makes it even tougher to return to our past dominance.  I don't know how this year is going to end up, but I think anyone here would be thrilled with a top 4 finish--and that in itself speaks wonders.

Quote from: BearLoverYou prefer 2003?  Then why the hell were you happy when Q and Yale made the finals last year?  That was the biggest slap in the face this program has ever gotten, and it signifies the other schools have passed us by.  More than that, though, it just makes it even tougher to return to our past dominance.  I don't know how this year is going to end up, but I think anyone here would be thrilled with a top 4 finish--and that in itself speaks wonders.

I'd rather Cornell not dominate a conference that wins national titles than dominate a conference that doesn't. How many national champions dominated their conferences in the past decade or so en route to a national title? Rising tide lifts all boats, etc., etc. The ECAC (including Cornell) has a better shot at winning (national) titles when the league is very good top to bottom and 4-5 schools play in the national tournament both statistically and from the fact they've played a higher level of competition all year long.

I don't think folks on Comm Ave are pouting that Lowell "has passed them by" by being the Frozen Four last year.

We get it that you want, and expect, Cornell to dominate the ECAC and play for national titles every year. That's not realistic unless you wish the rest of the league would go back to being terrible so that Cornell can win the league's one bid every year and hope for the best. Basically no team in the country meets your criteria for success of league dominance and national contender year in and year out (BC is probably closest with 4 out of 10 HEA #1 seeds and 6 of ten HEA titles and 3 NCAA titles in ten years).

Quote from: BearLoverYou prefer 2003?  Then why the hell were you happy when Q and Yale made the finals last year?

Isn't the answer obvious? Because I want Cornell to dominate in a nationally-competitive league. (And a pony.)

My argument from March hasn't changed: Cornell can't be consistently competitive at the national level when it doesn't play nationally-competitive teams all the time. It's a necessary—but insufficient—condition.

Quote from: Kyle RoseI don't give Schafer the benefit of the doubt. Maybe that's the key difference between the two schools of thought here.

It is.

But happily we agree on the solution in either case.  Just win.

Number of games vs top 20 / 10 / 5 teams (rank on date played); and record in games vs top 10:


2002  6 3 3  1-2-0
2003 11 3 2  1-2-0
2004 10 0 0  0-0-0
2005 13 4 1  2-2-0
2006 11 4 1  2-2-0
2007  6 4 2  2-1-1
2008 10 1 0  0-0-1
2009  8 5 0  3-2-0
2010 12 4 3  1-3-0
2011 13 8 3  2-6-0
2012 11 6 1  4-1-1
2013 17 5 4  1-4-0


Quote from: TrotskyNumber of games vs top 20 / 10 / 5 teams (rank on date played):

Code Select Expand


2002  6 [b]3 3[/b]
2003 11 [b]3 2[/b]
2004 10 0 0
2005 13 [b]4 1[/b]
2006 11 [b]4 1[/b]
2007  6 [b]4 2[/b]
2008 10 1 0
2009  8 5 0
2010 12 4 3
2011 12 7 3
2012 11 6 1
2013 17 5 4


And almost none of these (games against top 10 from 2001-02 through 2006-07) were conference games; it was largely Schafer scheduling tough nonconference opponents to get the team ready to compete in the NCAA tournament because there wasn't, by and large, a whole lot of strength in the conference beyond one-and-done Harvard.  Contrast that with the period from 2009-10 on where there are significantly more games against stronger teams, where many of those games have been tough Yale/Quinnipiac/Union/RPI teams (with 2013 skewed by the three-game playoff series against #1 Quinnipiac).  Chris is right when he says a rising tide lifts all boats.  When the WCHA was winning the national championship almost every year from 2000-06, it wasn't because any one team was dominating the conference, it was because the whole conference was so deep that playing that conference schedule prepared you for the postseason.  We may see fewer Whitelaw Trophies, but Cornell has a better shot at winning a national championship in that kind of a conference than in the ECAC we saw from, say, 1992 to 2008.

Quote from: Kyle Rose

Quote from: BearLoverYou prefer 2003?  Then why the hell were you happy when Q and Yale made the finals last year?

Isn't the answer obvious? Because I want Cornell to dominate in a nationally-competitive league. (And a pony.)

My argument from March hasn't changed: Cornell can't be consistently competitive at the national level when it doesn't play nationally-competitive teams all the time. It's a necessary—but insufficient—condition.

What are you talking about?  Cornell was ~.500 in the NCAAs when the ECAC sucked.  Now they can't make the NCAAs, because the conference doesn't suck.

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: Kyle Rose

Quote from: BearLoverYou prefer 2003?  Then why the hell were you happy when Q and Yale made the finals last year?

Isn't the answer obvious? Because I want Cornell to dominate in a nationally-competitive league. (And a pony.)

My argument from March hasn't changed: Cornell can't be consistently competitive at the national level when it doesn't play nationally-competitive teams all the time. It's a necessary—but insufficient—condition.

What are you talking about?  Cornell was ~.500 in the NCAAs when the ECAC sucked.  Now they can't make the NCAAs, because the conference doesn't suck.

Blaming other teams for your own lack of success is loser-talk.

Following some of the inductive logic on this thread, Cornell is unbeaten this season when Bardreau plays a full game. Does anyone know his situation for this coming weekend?

Quote from: Kyle Rose

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: Kyle Rose

Quote from: BearLoverYou prefer 2003?  Then why the hell were you happy when Q and Yale made the finals last year?

Isn't the answer obvious? Because I want Cornell to dominate in a nationally-competitive league. (And a pony.)

My argument from March hasn't changed: Cornell can't be consistently competitive at the national level when it doesn't play nationally-competitive teams all the time. It's a necessary—but insufficient—condition.

What are you talking about?  Cornell was ~.500 in the NCAAs when the ECAC sucked.  Now they can't make the NCAAs, because the conference doesn't suck.

Blaming other teams for your own lack of success is loser-talk.

Oh, I didn't realize in hockey you don't actually play against other teams but just shoot pucks on unguarded nets.

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: Kyle Rose

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: Kyle Rose

Quote from: BearLoverYou prefer 2003?  Then why the hell were you happy when Q and Yale made the finals last year?

Isn't the answer obvious? Because I want Cornell to dominate in a nationally-competitive league. (And a pony.)

My argument from March hasn't changed: Cornell can't be consistently competitive at the national level when it doesn't play nationally-competitive teams all the time. It's a necessary—but insufficient—condition.

What are you talking about?  Cornell was ~.500 in the NCAAs when the ECAC sucked.  Now they can't make the NCAAs, because the conference doesn't suck.

Blaming other teams for your own lack of success is loser-talk.

Oh, I didn't realize in hockey you don't actually play against other teams but just shoot pucks on unguarded nets.

::rolleyes::

Quote from: Kyle Rose

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: Kyle Rose

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: Kyle Rose

Quote from: BearLoverYou prefer 2003?  Then why the hell were you happy when Q and Yale made the finals last year?

Isn't the answer obvious? Because I want Cornell to dominate in a nationally-competitive league. (And a pony.)

My argument from March hasn't changed: Cornell can't be consistently competitive at the national level when it doesn't play nationally-competitive teams all the time. It's a necessary—but insufficient—condition.

What are you talking about?  Cornell was ~.500 in the NCAAs when the ECAC sucked.  Now they can't make the NCAAs, because the conference doesn't suck.

Blaming other teams for your own lack of success is loser-talk.

Oh, I didn't realize in hockey you don't actually play against other teams but just shoot pucks on unguarded nets.

::rolleyes::

I answered your stupid response with an equally stupid response.  The point is, everything in sports is relative.  It's not possible for everyone to get better.

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: Kyle Rose

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: Kyle Rose

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: Kyle Rose

Quote from: BearLoverYou prefer 2003?  Then why the hell were you happy when Q and Yale made the finals last year?

Isn't the answer obvious? Because I want Cornell to dominate in a nationally-competitive league. (And a pony.)

My argument from March hasn't changed: Cornell can't be consistently competitive at the national level when it doesn't play nationally-competitive teams all the time. It's a necessary—but insufficient—condition.

What are you talking about?  Cornell was ~.500 in the NCAAs when the ECAC sucked.  Now they can't make the NCAAs, because the conference doesn't suck.

Blaming other teams for your own lack of success is loser-talk.

Oh, I didn't realize in hockey you don't actually play against other teams but just shoot pucks on unguarded nets.

::rolleyes::

I answered your stupid response with an equally stupid response.  The point is, everything in sports is relative.  It's not possible for everyone to get better.

Sure it is. Just look at the NHL: the level of play across the league gets better decade by decade.

It's not possible for everyone to win. Well...duh.

Winning teams look within when they lose, and try to figure out a way to win next time. Losing teams (and irritating fans) complain about the unfair advantages of the other teams.

Be a winner.

Quote from: Kyle Rose

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: Kyle Rose

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: Kyle Rose

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: Kyle Rose

Quote from: BearLoverYou prefer 2003?  Then why the hell were you happy when Q and Yale made the finals last year?

Isn't the answer obvious? Because I want Cornell to dominate in a nationally-competitive league. (And a pony.)

My argument from March hasn't changed: Cornell can't be consistently competitive at the national level when it doesn't play nationally-competitive teams all the time. It's a necessary—but insufficient—condition.

What are you talking about?  Cornell was ~.500 in the NCAAs when the ECAC sucked.  Now they can't make the NCAAs, because the conference doesn't suck.

Blaming other teams for your own lack of success is loser-talk.

Oh, I didn't realize in hockey you don't actually play against other teams but just shoot pucks on unguarded nets.

::rolleyes::

I answered your stupid response with an equally stupid response.  The point is, everything in sports is relative.  It's not possible for everyone to get better.

Sure it is. Just look at the NHL: the level of play across the league gets better decade by decade.

It's not possible for everyone to win. Well...duh.

Winning teams look within when they lose, and try to figure out a way to win next time. Losing teams (and irritating fans) complain about the unfair advantages of the other teams.

Be a winner.

Elementary school soccer coach language aside, that doesn't make any sense because I'm not the Cornell hockey team.  I also don't know how any of that is relevant, because I've never complained about unfair advantages of other teams.  

I want Cornell to win.  They weren't the best team in the country when the ECAC wasn't as good.  Hell, half the time they weren't even the best team in the ECAC.  So no, I don't want to see everyone else get better to give Cornell more of a challenge.  Honestly, what the hell are you even saying?

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: Kyle Rose

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: Kyle Rose

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: Kyle Rose

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: Kyle Rose

Quote from: BearLoverYou prefer 2003?  Then why the hell were you happy when Q and Yale made the finals last year?

Isn't the answer obvious? Because I want Cornell to dominate in a nationally-competitive league. (And a pony.)

My argument from March hasn't changed: Cornell can't be consistently competitive at the national level when it doesn't play nationally-competitive teams all the time. It's a necessary—but insufficient—condition.

What are you talking about?  Cornell was ~.500 in the NCAAs when the ECAC sucked.  Now they can't make the NCAAs, because the conference doesn't suck.

Blaming other teams for your own lack of success is loser-talk.

Oh, I didn't realize in hockey you don't actually play against other teams but just shoot pucks on unguarded nets.

::rolleyes::

I answered your stupid response with an equally stupid response.  The point is, everything in sports is relative.  It's not possible for everyone to get better.

Sure it is. Just look at the NHL: the level of play across the league gets better decade by decade.

It's not possible for everyone to win. Well...duh.

Winning teams look within when they lose, and try to figure out a way to win next time. Losing teams (and irritating fans) complain about the unfair advantages of the other teams.

Be a winner.

Elementary school soccer coach language aside, that doesn't make any sense because I'm not the Cornell hockey team.  I also don't know how any of that is relevant, because I've never complained about unfair advantages of other teams.  

I want Cornell to win.  They weren't the best team in the country when the ECAC wasn't as good.  Hell, half the time they weren't even the best team in the ECAC.  So no, I don't want to see everyone else get better to give Cornell more of a challenge.  Honestly, what the hell are you even saying?

So you'd rather Cornell play a D-III schedule and go 29-0 than go 15-14 and finish 5th in a competitive ECAC?

Quote from: Chris '03

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: Kyle Rose

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: Kyle Rose

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: Kyle Rose

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: Kyle Rose

Quote from: BearLoverYou prefer 2003?  Then why the hell were you happy when Q and Yale made the finals last year?

Isn't the answer obvious? Because I want Cornell to dominate in a nationally-competitive league. (And a pony.)

My argument from March hasn't changed: Cornell can't be consistently competitive at the national level when it doesn't play nationally-competitive teams all the time. It's a necessary—but insufficient—condition.

What are you talking about?  Cornell was ~.500 in the NCAAs when the ECAC sucked.  Now they can't make the NCAAs, because the conference doesn't suck.

Blaming other teams for your own lack of success is loser-talk.

Oh, I didn't realize in hockey you don't actually play against other teams but just shoot pucks on unguarded nets.

::rolleyes::

I answered your stupid response with an equally stupid response.  The point is, everything in sports is relative.  It's not possible for everyone to get better.

Sure it is. Just look at the NHL: the level of play across the league gets better decade by decade.

It's not possible for everyone to win. Well...duh.

Winning teams look within when they lose, and try to figure out a way to win next time. Losing teams (and irritating fans) complain about the unfair advantages of the other teams.

Be a winner.

Elementary school soccer coach language aside, that doesn't make any sense because I'm not the Cornell hockey team.  I also don't know how any of that is relevant, because I've never complained about unfair advantages of other teams.  

I want Cornell to win.  They weren't the best team in the country when the ECAC wasn't as good.  Hell, half the time they weren't even the best team in the ECAC.  So no, I don't want to see everyone else get better to give Cornell more of a challenge.  Honestly, what the hell are you even saying?

So you'd rather Cornell play a D-III schedule and go 29-0 than go 15-14 and finish 5th in a competitive ECAC?

No, I never said anything suggesting that.  All I said is they weren't perfect before, they never won it all (recently, of course), so I don't know why you'd want to make it harder.  I prefer 2003 to 2013.

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: Chris '03

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: Kyle Rose

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: Kyle Rose

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: Kyle Rose

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: Kyle Rose

Quote from: BearLoverYou prefer 2003?  Then why the hell were you happy when Q and Yale made the finals last year?

Isn't the answer obvious? Because I want Cornell to dominate in a nationally-competitive league. (And a pony.)

My argument from March hasn't changed: Cornell can't be consistently competitive at the national level when it doesn't play nationally-competitive teams all the time. It's a necessary—but insufficient—condition.

What are you talking about?  Cornell was ~.500 in the NCAAs when the ECAC sucked.  Now they can't make the NCAAs, because the conference doesn't suck.

Blaming other teams for your own lack of success is loser-talk.

Oh, I didn't realize in hockey you don't actually play against other teams but just shoot pucks on unguarded nets.

::rolleyes::

I answered your stupid response with an equally stupid response.  The point is, everything in sports is relative.  It's not possible for everyone to get better.

Sure it is. Just look at the NHL: the level of play across the league gets better decade by decade.

It's not possible for everyone to win. Well...duh.

Winning teams look within when they lose, and try to figure out a way to win next time. Losing teams (and irritating fans) complain about the unfair advantages of the other teams.

Be a winner.

Elementary school soccer coach language aside, that doesn't make any sense because I'm not the Cornell hockey team.  I also don't know how any of that is relevant, because I've never complained about unfair advantages of other teams.  

I want Cornell to win.  They weren't the best team in the country when the ECAC wasn't as good.  Hell, half the time they weren't even the best team in the ECAC.  So no, I don't want to see everyone else get better to give Cornell more of a challenge.  Honestly, what the hell are you even saying?

So you'd rather Cornell play a D-III schedule and go 29-0 than go 15-14 and finish 5th in a competitive ECAC?

No, I never said anything suggesting that.  All I said is they weren't perfect before, they never won it all (recently, of course), so I don't know why you'd want to make it harder.  I prefer 2003 to 2013.

So do I. But that's not a recipe for winning it all. I want them to win a national championship, and the way there is through a high-quality ECAC, not through an ECAC of scrubs like there used to be.

Quote from: Kyle Rose

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: Chris '03

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: Kyle Rose

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: Kyle Rose

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: Kyle Rose

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: Kyle Rose

Quote from: BearLoverYou prefer 2003?  Then why the hell were you happy when Q and Yale made the finals last year?

Isn't the answer obvious? Because I want Cornell to dominate in a nationally-competitive league. (And a pony.)

My argument from March hasn't changed: Cornell can't be consistently competitive at the national level when it doesn't play nationally-competitive teams all the time. It's a necessary—but insufficient—condition.

What are you talking about?  Cornell was ~.500 in the NCAAs when the ECAC sucked.  Now they can't make the NCAAs, because the conference doesn't suck.

Blaming other teams for your own lack of success is loser-talk.

Oh, I didn't realize in hockey you don't actually play against other teams but just shoot pucks on unguarded nets.

::rolleyes::

I answered your stupid response with an equally stupid response.  The point is, everything in sports is relative.  It's not possible for everyone to get better.

Sure it is. Just look at the NHL: the level of play across the league gets better decade by decade.

It's not possible for everyone to win. Well...duh.

Winning teams look within when they lose, and try to figure out a way to win next time. Losing teams (and irritating fans) complain about the unfair advantages of the other teams.

Be a winner.

Elementary school soccer coach language aside, that doesn't make any sense because I'm not the Cornell hockey team.  I also don't know how any of that is relevant, because I've never complained about unfair advantages of other teams.  

I want Cornell to win.  They weren't the best team in the country when the ECAC wasn't as good.  Hell, half the time they weren't even the best team in the ECAC.  So no, I don't want to see everyone else get better to give Cornell more of a challenge.  Honestly, what the hell are you even saying?

So you'd rather Cornell play a D-III schedule and go 29-0 than go 15-14 and finish 5th in a competitive ECAC?

No, I never said anything suggesting that.  All I said is they weren't perfect before, they never won it all (recently, of course), so I don't know why you'd want to make it harder.  I prefer 2003 to 2013.

So do I. But that's not a recipe for winning it all. I want them to win a national championship, and the way there is through a high-quality ECAC, not through an ECAC of scrubs like there used to be.

You can argue either way.  All they have to do is get into the NCAA tournament and win four games.  They can do that through luck, skill, overcoming the adversity of a tough schedule, or having all their opponents get mysterious stomach bugs.

Who cares?  The ECAC is strong now.  It was weak then.  It'll get weak again at some point.  Then strong again.  Etc.  Since we (us as fans and Cornell as a team) have no control over any of that, complaining about whether or not it's "bad" that ECAC teams were in the championship seems kinda pointless, doesn't it?

Quote from: Kyle Rose

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: Chris '03

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: Kyle Rose

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: Kyle Rose

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: Kyle Rose

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: Kyle Rose

Quote from: BearLoverYou prefer 2003?  Then why the hell were you happy when Q and Yale made the finals last year?

Isn't the answer obvious? Because I want Cornell to dominate in a nationally-competitive league. (And a pony.)

My argument from March hasn't changed: Cornell can't be consistently competitive at the national level when it doesn't play nationally-competitive teams all the time. It's a necessary—but insufficient—condition.

What are you talking about?  Cornell was ~.500 in the NCAAs when the ECAC sucked.  Now they can't make the NCAAs, because the conference doesn't suck.

Blaming other teams for your own lack of success is loser-talk.

Oh, I didn't realize in hockey you don't actually play against other teams but just shoot pucks on unguarded nets.

::rolleyes::

I answered your stupid response with an equally stupid response.  The point is, everything in sports is relative.  It's not possible for everyone to get better.

Sure it is. Just look at the NHL: the level of play across the league gets better decade by decade.

It's not possible for everyone to win. Well...duh.

Winning teams look within when they lose, and try to figure out a way to win next time. Losing teams (and irritating fans) complain about the unfair advantages of the other teams.

Be a winner.

Elementary school soccer coach language aside, that doesn't make any sense because I'm not the Cornell hockey team.  I also don't know how any of that is relevant, because I've never complained about unfair advantages of other teams.  

I want Cornell to win.  They weren't the best team in the country when the ECAC wasn't as good.  Hell, half the time they weren't even the best team in the ECAC.  So no, I don't want to see everyone else get better to give Cornell more of a challenge.  Honestly, what the hell are you even saying?

So you'd rather Cornell play a D-III schedule and go 29-0 than go 15-14 and finish 5th in a competitive ECAC?

No, I never said anything suggesting that.  All I said is they weren't perfect before, they never won it all (recently, of course), so I don't know why you'd want to make it harder.  I prefer 2003 to 2013.

So do I. But that's not a recipe for winning it all. I want them to win a national championship, and the way there is through a high-quality ECAC, not through an ECAC of scrubs like there used to be.

But Cornell had ample chances to win a national championship when the conference "sucked."  [Note that, when the conference "sucked," Cornell still had to get in as an at-large team more than half the time.  So not only was Cornell winning the ECAC more, they were also getting at-large bids more.] They made it to the NCAAs more often than not, and they even made it as a 1-seed once and a 2-seed thrice.  You'd say that's not nationally competitive?  Because until they had to play national powerhouses like UNH and Minnesota, Cornell usually won in the NCAA's.  A few times they even beat those teams.  To say they weren't nationally competitive is incorrect unless "nationally competitive" entails being one of the absolute best few programs in the country.  Are you saying you want Cornell to be BC?  Cornell was only a small step below when the ECAC was weaker, and honestly that's probably the best anyone can ever realistically hope for.  I don't see how a harder ECAC is going to help them become BC.  They are a long shot to even make the tournament now...

There's a graphic in tbrw.info that shows NCAA Postseason opponents that paints a good picture of Cornell's success in the NCAA tournament and their ability to make it in.

In my opinion, the point at which "the rest of the ECAC (Yale, Union, Q) started to get better" was 2008-2009 when we had no prayer of beating Yale.  Since that time, Cornell has made it to the tournament 3/5 times and won a single game in the tournament 2/3 of those times.

If you go back between seasons ending in 1998-2008, there was ONLY ONE ECAC NCAA tournament win that wasn't Cornell's (Clarkson 2008), I took this as indication that the ECAC was bad at this time (After all, the reason we're saying the ECAC is better is because other teams have started to win NCAA tournament games).  During that time Cornell had an awesome stretch (2002-2006) when it made the tournament 4 times, won at least one game each time, and made it to the FF once, and a lousy stretch (1998-2001) when they didn't make the tournament.  So when the ECAC was lousy, Cornell got in 4/11 times (but won at least 1 game each time), but didn't get in 7/11 times.

My conclusion from this data is that the ECAC being stronger doesn't hurt Cornell.  I encourage anyone who is interested to lengthen the scope of analysis beyond 1998.

Quote from: KGR11There's a graphic in tbrw.info that shows NCAA Postseason opponents that paints a good picture of Cornell's success in the NCAA tournament and their ability to make it in.

In my opinion, the point at which "the rest of the ECAC (Yale, Union, Q) started to get better" was 2008-2009 when we had no prayer of beating Yale.  Since that time, Cornell has made it to the tournament 3/5 times and won a single game in the tournament 2/3 of those times.

If you go back between seasons ending in 1998-2008, there was ONLY ONE ECAC NCAA tournament win that wasn't Cornell's (Clarkson 2008), I took this as indication that the ECAC was bad at this time (After all, the reason we're saying the ECAC is better is because other teams have started to win NCAA tournament games).  During that time Cornell had an awesome stretch (2002-2006) when it made the tournament 4 times, won at least one game each time, and made it to the FF once, and a lousy stretch (1998-2001) when they didn't make the tournament.  So when the ECAC was lousy, Cornell got in 4/11 times (but won at least 1 game each time), but didn't get in 7/11 times.

My conclusion from this data is that the ECAC being stronger doesn't hurt Cornell.  I encourage anyone who is interested to lengthen the scope of analysis beyond 1998.

The "rest of the ECAC" was really only Yale in 2008-09.  Using 2008-onwards as the modern era doesn't work because back then Yale was only real threat to Cornell; now it seems the entire conference has a great chance of beating Cornell any night.  Further, the 1998-2001 Cornell teams did not resemble those of 2002-present in terms of talent.  Why did you leave out '96/'97?  They made it to the NCAA's both those years.  I don't think you're doing it intentionally, but it seems like you're cherrypicking numbers.  My point is that Cornell was doing great up until the conference got really good.  They were awesome in the ECAC but rarely outright dominant, and they competed at a very high national level.  Now, it seems like a minor miracle if they make the tournament.

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: KGR11There's a graphic in tbrw.info that shows NCAA Postseason opponents that paints a good picture of Cornell's success in the NCAA tournament and their ability to make it in.

In my opinion, the point at which "the rest of the ECAC (Yale, Union, Q) started to get better" was 2008-2009 when we had no prayer of beating Yale.  Since that time, Cornell has made it to the tournament 3/5 times and won a single game in the tournament 2/3 of those times.

If you go back between seasons ending in 1998-2008, there was ONLY ONE ECAC NCAA tournament win that wasn't Cornell's (Clarkson 2008), I took this as indication that the ECAC was bad at this time (After all, the reason we're saying the ECAC is better is because other teams have started to win NCAA tournament games).  During that time Cornell had an awesome stretch (2002-2006) when it made the tournament 4 times, won at least one game each time, and made it to the FF once, and a lousy stretch (1998-2001) when they didn't make the tournament.  So when the ECAC was lousy, Cornell got in 4/11 times (but won at least 1 game each time), but didn't get in 7/11 times.

My conclusion from this data is that the ECAC being stronger doesn't hurt Cornell.  I encourage anyone who is interested to lengthen the scope of analysis beyond 1998.

The "rest of the ECAC" was really only Yale in 2008-09.  Using 2008-onwards as the modern era doesn't work because back then Yale was only real threat to Cornell; now it seems the entire conference has a great chance of beating Cornell any night.  Further, the 1998-2001 Cornell teams did not resemble those of 2002-present in terms of talent.  Why did you leave out '96/'97?  They made it to the NCAA's both those years.  I don't think you're doing it intentionally, but it seems like you're cherrypicking numbers.  My point is that Cornell was doing great up until the conference got really good.  They were awesome in the ECAC but rarely outright dominant, and they competed at a very high national level.  Now, it seems like a minor miracle if they make the tournament.

You got hit on the head by an acorn. Stop screaming about the fucking sky.

Top 3 ECAC teams, final PWR:


2002  9 [color=#d61616]Cor[/color]  18 RPI  22 Clk
2003  1 [color=#d61616]Cor[/color]  12 Hvd  19 Drt
2004 15 Col  16 [color=#d61616]Cor[/color]  20 Drt
2005  5 [color=#d61616]Cor[/color]   9 Hvd  14 Col
2006  5 Hvd   8 [color=#d61616]Cor[/color]  15 Drt
2007  3 Clk  12 SLU  19 Drt
2008 10 Clk  15 Hvd  16 Prn
2009  5 Yal  11 [color=#d61616]Cor[/color]  12 Prn
2010  7 [color=#d61616]Cor[/color]   9 Yal  19 Uni
2011  1 Yal   8 Uni  15 RPI
2012  3 Uni  13 [color=#d61616]Cor[/color]  21 Hvd
2013  1 Qpc  12 Uni  15 Yal


Quote from: ugarte

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: KGR11There's a graphic in tbrw.info that shows NCAA Postseason opponents that paints a good picture of Cornell's success in the NCAA tournament and their ability to make it in.

In my opinion, the point at which "the rest of the ECAC (Yale, Union, Q) started to get better" was 2008-2009 when we had no prayer of beating Yale.  Since that time, Cornell has made it to the tournament 3/5 times and won a single game in the tournament 2/3 of those times.

If you go back between seasons ending in 1998-2008, there was ONLY ONE ECAC NCAA tournament win that wasn't Cornell's (Clarkson 2008), I took this as indication that the ECAC was bad at this time (After all, the reason we're saying the ECAC is better is because other teams have started to win NCAA tournament games).  During that time Cornell had an awesome stretch (2002-2006) when it made the tournament 4 times, won at least one game each time, and made it to the FF once, and a lousy stretch (1998-2001) when they didn't make the tournament.  So when the ECAC was lousy, Cornell got in 4/11 times (but won at least 1 game each time), but didn't get in 7/11 times.

My conclusion from this data is that the ECAC being stronger doesn't hurt Cornell.  I encourage anyone who is interested to lengthen the scope of analysis beyond 1998.

The "rest of the ECAC" was really only Yale in 2008-09.  Using 2008-onwards as the modern era doesn't work because back then Yale was only real threat to Cornell; now it seems the entire conference has a great chance of beating Cornell any night.  Further, the 1998-2001 Cornell teams did not resemble those of 2002-present in terms of talent.  Why did you leave out '96/'97?  They made it to the NCAA's both those years.  I don't think you're doing it intentionally, but it seems like you're cherrypicking numbers.  My point is that Cornell was doing great up until the conference got really good.  They were awesome in the ECAC but rarely outright dominant, and they competed at a very high national level.  Now, it seems like a minor miracle if they make the tournament.

You got hit on the head by an acorn. Stop screaming about the fucking sky.

I never said anything about the sky falling...I just said you're all rooting for the wrong things.  the question does not concern whether Cornell is a good team, but whether they are trending in the right direction.  I think they are trending in the wrong direction, and the improved ECAC is the biggest reason.  

Remember, in addition to losing far more games each year, a quieter Lynah, etc....there are only so many recruits who want to play at a good school that is also good at hockey, only so many who don't need a scholarship.  Cornell is getting a smaller slice of the pie now, even if the ECAC as is doing better relative to the other conferences than it did before.

Quote from: BearLoverI never said anything about the sky falling...I just said you're all rooting for the wrong things.  the question does not concern whether Cornell is a good team, but whether they are trending in the right direction.  I think they are trending in the wrong direction, and the improved ECAC is the biggest reason.

That's the crux of this argument and has been since it started in April.  Rooting for the wrong things!  First and foremost everyone here is rooting for the same thing - the success of Cornell hockey.  (Well, not our various guests from other schools, but still.) The other stuff is secondary. Having dealt with years of "EZAC" bullshit from western fans I am happy that a member of our conference won the national title. You're not ad you don't have to be. But whether or not you think the sky is falling you come off sounding that way.

Quote from: KeithKBut whether or not you think the sky is falling you come off sounding that way.

Agreed.

I don't have the time to muck through and pick out who is saying what here.

The argument seems to start these days with the question "How is it a good thing that Yale won? How can you be happy about this?" If all one cares about is the success of the Cornell team (and some of us here fall into that category) it isn't good when ANY team other than Cornell wins the National Championship. In that regard, conference doesn't matter. Yale, Quinnipiac, UML, SCSU...they all were "Not-Cornell," so who cares what conference they are from?  Once the seedings are set, it's a "national soup" and every other team in there in years Cornell makes the field is the enemy, be they from Colorado, Wisconsin, Alabama, or Massachussets.  If one of the Not-Cornells win, I'm upset.

Then this is where, for those of us who have either league pride or historical perspective (or both), other tenets of our college hockey fandom come to the surface. Yes, we're (mostly) all Cornell-firsters here. But what happens when the CU season comes to an early end?  I still watch the games. I still enjoy college hockey immensely. So knowing that the ECAC hasn't called a member champion since the 1980s, having pompous Western & Boston-centric D-bags crow for *years* that the league will never be relevant again and that it has sunk from the "Big 4" to be on par with Atlantic Hockey...this was very satisfying. Not joyous, mind you. Satisfying.  It trumpeted a return to relevance and a retirement of the "EZAC" moniker.  And most important of all, the whisper of "If they can do it, so can we" in everybody's ear from Ithaca to Potsdam to Providence.  That's why there was a positive reaction here.

Look, Yale was lucky. They had a great tournament, but they were incredibly lucky to have even made the tournament, if you recall. I remember that had they dropped one point (such as the OT win at Lynah or scoring with 0:03 left in OT vs. Colgate the night before a tough 2-1 win vs. Cornell in the final regular season game), they aren't in the NCAA field at all.  That was a team that had a stretch of 1-6 in the meat of the season, and got outscored 8-0 in Atlantic City.  Then, they played great with a hot goalie backing them up. They are Exhibit A of the "just get in, and anything can happen" nature of the NCAA Tournament.  It's a new era where the same teams of NoDak/Michigan/Minny/BU aren't stomping over no-names every year.  Now you have teams like BSU, RIT, Miami, and UVM making the Frozen Four on a regular basis.  Just get in, and it's "why not us?"  Yale did exactly that.

Quote from: RichHJust get in, and it's "why not us?"  Yale did exactly that.

Yet another reason why I'd rather be dominating the ECAC every year ::faint::

Quote from: MattS

Quote from: KeithKBut whether or not you think the sky is falling you come off sounding that way.

Agreed.

I don't recall saying anything about Cornell being finished.  I simply argued against all the people celebrating Yale's win.  I realistically think Yale winning makes Cornell worse off, and that's all I ever said.

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: MattS

Quote from: KeithKBut whether or not you think the sky is falling you come off sounding that way.

Agreed.

I don't recall saying anything about Cornell being finished.  I simply argued against all the people celebrating Yale's win.  I realistically think Yale winning makes Cornell worse off, and that's all I ever said.

But what if UMass-Lowell or St. Cloud had won in Pittsburgh instead? Would that change anything about the state of affairs at the onset of this season?

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: MattS

Quote from: KeithKBut whether or not you think the sky is falling you come off sounding that way.

Agreed.

I don't recall saying anything about Cornell being finished.  I simply argued against all the people celebrating Yale's win.  I realistically think Yale winning makes Cornell worse off, and that's all I ever said.

You didn't say we were finished. It's the tone of how you argued the point and how vehement that made you come off as if the sky was falling. I suspect that was mostly your emotional reaction to seeing Yale win given that (if I'm remembering correctly) you can't stand Yale.

Quote from: BearLoverand the improved ECAC is the biggest reason.  

Is it? What I see is a correlation between Cornell's recent woes and the rise of programs like Yale and Union and Quinnipiac, but I have seen no actual evidence the second is the cause of the first.

Personally, I'd say problems #1 and #2 are (in no particular order) the difficulty the coaching staff has had in adjusting to the faster, less physical game dominant now, and discipline/confidence/cohesion problems with the personnel. Sure, Cornell will lose to Yale more often now than it would have 10 years ago because Yale is so much better; but does anyone (Bueller? Bueller?) actually think Cornell is playing like the well-oiled machine it used to be? Cornell used to be like the Terminator: emotionless and efficient at dispatching their opponents, with every player an interchangeable component of the machine. I simply don't get that feeling anymore. They struggle now to get their shit together in a way they never did even against superior out-of-conference teams. I contest that this is a problem with the competition: this feels way more like internal issues to me.

Quote from: Kyle RosePersonally, I'd say problems #1 and #2 are (in no particular order) the difficulty the coaching staff has had in adjusting to the faster, less physical game dominant now, and discipline/confidence/cohesion problems with the personnel. Sure, Cornell will lose to Yale more often now than it would have 10 years ago because Yale is so much better; but does anyone (Bueller? Bueller?) actually think Cornell is playing like the well-oiled machine it used to be? Cornell used to be like the Terminator: emotionless and efficient at dispatching their opponents, with every player an interchangeable component of the machine. I simply don't get that feeling anymore. They struggle now to get their shit together in a way they never did even against superior out-of-conference teams. I contest that this is a problem with the competition: this feels way more like internal issues to me.

What you said. From what (relatively little) I've seen, it seems like these guys don't mesh well in that intangible way a team needs to in order to be great, or even play at a level beyond what, on paper, they're capable of achieving. Who knows whether it's unchecked egos, lack of discipline, or just a group of young men who don't like each other much and haven't figured out the best way to rise about that and come together as a team. In the games I was able to see live last season (which included the game where Bardreau got his neck broke), I felt like talented guys were far too eager to get scrappy and risk taking stupid penalties.  

Kyle, thank you for being the far more credible poster here on whose opinion I'm piggybacking to express something I've sensed for a while.

Quote from: Kyle Rose

Quote from: BearLoverand the improved ECAC is the biggest reason.  

Is it? What I see is a correlation between Cornell's recent woes and the rise of programs like Yale and Union and Quinnipiac, but I have seen no actual evidence the second is the cause of the first.

Personally, I'd say problems #1 and #2 are (in no particular order) the difficulty the coaching staff has had in adjusting to the faster, less physical game dominant now, and discipline/confidence/cohesion problems with the personnel. Sure, Cornell will lose to Yale more often now than it would have 10 years ago because Yale is so much better; but does anyone (Bueller? Bueller?) actually think Cornell is playing like the well-oiled machine it used to be? Cornell used to be like the Terminator: emotionless and efficient at dispatching their opponents, with every player an interchangeable component of the machine. I simply don't get that feeling anymore. They struggle now to get their shit together in a way they never did even against superior out-of-conference teams. I contest that this is a problem with the competition: this feels way more like internal issues to me.

Of course it's evidence of the first!  Ever notice that Yale, Q, and Union play Cornell twice (or more) each season?  

No one will disagree with you on your latter points, but the system failing to adapt is not mutually exclusive from other teams getting objectively better overall.  

I'm done discussing this.  I think the rise of the ECAC is a net negative for Cornell.  Others may disagree, but I think it's pretty clear-cut.  What we can all agree on, though, is that there are serious internal problems and that even with the improved ECAC, Cornell should be far better than how it's been playing the past 13 months.  It's tough to put a finger on what, but something significant has to change, and soon.

Quote from: Kyle RoseSure, Cornell will lose to Yale more often now than it would have 10 years ago because Yale is so much better; but does anyone (Bueller? Bueller?) actually think Cornell is playing like the well-oiled machine it used to be? Cornell used to be like the Terminator: emotionless and efficient at dispatching their opponents, with every player an interchangeable component of the machine.

1) Part of that well-oiled, terminating machine seems to be missing, to me: a true energy/shutdown line. All I've seen out there are a bunch of forwards, some of whom should know better, that have forgotten how to play defense. Some line has to step up and be able to be counted on. I mean, if you look at the plus/minuses (I know, I know), there are some (McCarron) who have never been good defensive types but can score. There are others (deSwardt) who have never been defensive types and can't. IMHO, it's time for deSwardt to sit a bit, senior year notwithstanding. Others, if they take the right mentality to heart, would seem perfectly able to fill those places. Where are the Mugfords, Vartaressians, Abbotts, and Hornbys?

2) On defense, everything is going fine for the skaters. The freshmen are freshmen, and will get better; Gotovets is Gotovets, and will be... Gotovets. A lot depends on him, actually.

3) Andy Iles is not on fire, to say the least.  .901 (55th in the nation) isn't great.

Yes, #3 depends a lot on #1, but vice versa as well. I don't know. I can only hope for the best, and that Schafer'll right the ship over the break.

I know I should let this die (or dieeeeeeeeeeeee, depending whether you're a whippersnapper), but put me in the camp of people who think a strong ECAC is good for Cornell.

Since 2000, the WCHA has won 7 of the 14 titles.  Only ONE of those was won by the WCHA regular season champ (Denver 2005).  The other six were won by teams who came in 2nd, 3rd, and 4th (twice each).  Between 1985 and 199 (the other years of essentially the same WCHA), they only won 4 out of 15 tournaments, and all 4 of those teams won the McNaughton (reg season) and the WCHA tournament. The conference got stronger after 2000, resulting in more national titles for the conference, but fewer for the "top" team in the conference.  Can it really be a coincidence that the ECAC's recent title was won by our 3rd place team in a year when the rest of the conference did not lose a postseason game outside of the conference?  I don't believe that for a second.

In the end, I think it comes down to a value judgement: would you take a reduced chance at winning a Cleary Bedpan and a Whitelaw Trophy for an increased chance at doing better in the NCAAs in general and maybe even winning the darn thing?  It really is a tough call, but for me, I'd rather be known as a perennial Frozen Four team than a team who perennially runs away with a weak league and then wins an NCAA game every so often.

Quote from: RobbI know I should let this die (or dieeeeeeeeeeeee, depending whether you're a whippersnapper), but put me in the camp of people who think a strong ECAC is good for Cornell.

Since 2000, the WCHA has won 7 of the 14 titles.  Only ONE of those was won by the WCHA regular season champ (Denver 2005).  The other six were won by teams who came in 2nd, 3rd, and 4th (twice each).  Between 1985 and 199 (the other years of essentially the same WCHA), they only won 4 out of 15 tournaments, and all 4 of those teams won the McNaughton (reg season) and the WCHA tournament. The conference got stronger after 2000, resulting in more national titles for the conference, but fewer for the "top" team in the conference.  Can it really be a coincidence that the ECAC's recent title was won by our 3rd place team in a year when the rest of the conference did not lose a postseason game outside of the conference?  I don't believe that for a second.

In the end, I think it comes down to a value judgement: would you take a reduced chance at winning a Cleary Bedpan and a Whitelaw Trophy for an increased chance at doing better in the NCAAs in general and maybe even winning the darn thing?  It really is a tough call, but for me, I'd rather be known as a perennial Frozen Four team than a team who perennially runs away with a weak league and then wins an NCAA game every so often.

+1

This whole argument is a bit silly, as it would appear we don't really have a choice anymore.  Things have changed, at least in the short- to medium- term, and Cornell isn't going to run roughshod over the league each year. We're going to have to compete with a number of very teams in order to get to, and succeed in, the NCAA's.  

That said, it seems crazy to me to not prefer a team that barrels through league play (regular season and tournament).  What about the 2000's indicates that doesn't prepare Cornell well for the NCAA's?  The winning at least 1 game each time they were in the NCAAs?  The trip to the Frozen Four?  The multiple one-goal (often OT) losses to national powerhouses?

The first prerequisite for success in the NCAA's is being in it.  That happened - a lot - when Cornell was dominating the league. And IMO, the team looked like they belonged every year they were there.

Quote from: Jordan 04What about the 2000's indicates that doesn't prepare Cornell well for the NCAA's?

A missing banner.

Quote from: Jordan 04This whole argument is a bit silly, as it would appear we don't really have a choice anymore.  Things have changed, at least in the short- to medium- term, and Cornell isn't going to run roughshod over the league each year. We're going to have to compete with a number of very teams in order to get to, and succeed in, the NCAA's.  

That said, it seems crazy to me to not prefer a team that barrels through league play (regular season and tournament).  What about the 2000's indicates that doesn't prepare Cornell well for the NCAA's?  The winning at least 1 game each time they were in the NCAAs?  The trip to the Frozen Four?  The multiple one-goal (often OT) losses to national powerhouses?

The fact that until 2012 over Michigan, we never (maybe once? too lazy to look up) beat a higher seeded team.  If you go with that trend, the only way to win it all is to go in with the #1 seed, and that didn't work either.

As Age says, "where's the banner?"

QuoteThe first prerequisite for success in the NCAA's is being in it.  That happened - a lot - when Cornell was dominating the league. And IMO, the team looked like they belonged every year they were there.

Obviously dominating a weak league is a clear path to the dance.  Coming in 4th in the best conference in the nation is ALSO a clear path to the dance.  So, just wanting to get to the dance is not a reason to prefer one to the other.  I firmly believe that the 4th best team from the best conference has a better chance to win than a team that gets there by dominating a weak conference - that's happened at least twice since 2000, while no team that has dominated a weak conference has won it.

Quote from: RobbThe fact that until 2012 over Michigan, we never (maybe once? too lazy to look up) beat a higher seeded team.  If you go with that trend, the only way to win it all is to go in with the #1 seed, and that didn't work either.

As Age says, "where's the banner?"

QuoteThe first prerequisite for success in the NCAA's is being in it.  That happened - a lot - when Cornell was dominating the league. And IMO, the team looked like they belonged every year they were there.

Obviously dominating a weak league is a clear path to the dance.  Coming in 4th in the best conference in the nation is ALSO a clear path to the dance.  So, just wanting to get to the dance is not a reason to prefer one to the other.  I firmly believe that the 4th best team from the best conference has a better chance to win than a team that gets there by dominating a weak conference - that's happened at least twice since 2000, while no team that has dominated a weak conference has won it.

We did beat Northeastern when they were a 2 seed and we were a 3 in 2009.  Not sure if there are any other instances.

Quote from: KGR11

Quote from: RobbThe fact that until 2012 over Michigan, we never (maybe once? too lazy to look up) beat a higher seeded team.  If you go with that trend, the only way to win it all is to go in with the #1 seed, and that didn't work either.

As Age says, "where's the banner?"

QuoteThe first prerequisite for success in the NCAA's is being in it.  That happened - a lot - when Cornell was dominating the league. And IMO, the team looked like they belonged every year they were there.

Obviously dominating a weak league is a clear path to the dance.  Coming in 4th in the best conference in the nation is ALSO a clear path to the dance.  So, just wanting to get to the dance is not a reason to prefer one to the other.  I firmly believe that the 4th best team from the best conference has a better chance to win than a team that gets there by dominating a weak conference - that's happened at least twice since 2000, while no team that has dominated a weak conference has won it.

We did beat Northeastern when they were a 2 seed and we were a 3 in 2009.  Not sure if there are any other instances.

1997, Cornell as a 6W seed beat Miami (3W)

Quote from: RichH

Quote from: KGR11

Quote from: RobbThe fact that until 2012 over Michigan, we never (maybe once? too lazy to look up) beat a higher seeded team.  If you go with that trend, the only way to win it all is to go in with the #1 seed, and that didn't work either.

As Age says, "where's the banner?"

QuoteThe first prerequisite for success in the NCAA's is being in it.  That happened - a lot - when Cornell was dominating the league. And IMO, the team looked like they belonged every year they were there.

Obviously dominating a weak league is a clear path to the dance.  Coming in 4th in the best conference in the nation is ALSO a clear path to the dance.  So, just wanting to get to the dance is not a reason to prefer one to the other.  I firmly believe that the 4th best team from the best conference has a better chance to win than a team that gets there by dominating a weak conference - that's happened at least twice since 2000, while no team that has dominated a weak conference has won it.

We did beat Northeastern when they were a 2 seed and we were a 3 in 2009.  Not sure if there are any other instances.

1997, Cornell as a 6W seed beat Miami (3W)

Yes, but as I recall we were pretty infuriated by that seeding at the time. By the numbers Cornell and Miami should have been the 4-5 game that year but were switched to 3-6 for other reasons (can't remember if it was better second round matchup or something else). Cornell had a higher total PWR than Miami, which to date had been the usual way to set seeds. Instead they gave Miami the higher seed because they won the head to head comparison, largely on the strength of their win at Lynah the previous November. Long story short, that's not a really good counter example.

How about we compromise?  Let's all root for Cornell to dominate a conference that is the best in college hockey?

Quote from: KeithK

Quote from: RichH

Quote from: KGR11

Quote from: RobbThe fact that until 2012 over Michigan, we never (maybe once? too lazy to look up) beat a higher seeded team.  If you go with that trend, the only way to win it all is to go in with the #1 seed, and that didn't work either.

As Age says, "where's the banner?"

QuoteThe first prerequisite for success in the NCAA's is being in it.  That happened - a lot - when Cornell was dominating the league. And IMO, the team looked like they belonged every year they were there.

Obviously dominating a weak league is a clear path to the dance.  Coming in 4th in the best conference in the nation is ALSO a clear path to the dance.  So, just wanting to get to the dance is not a reason to prefer one to the other.  I firmly believe that the 4th best team from the best conference has a better chance to win than a team that gets there by dominating a weak conference - that's happened at least twice since 2000, while no team that has dominated a weak conference has won it.

We did beat Northeastern when they were a 2 seed and we were a 3 in 2009.  Not sure if there are any other instances.

1997, Cornell as a 6W seed beat Miami (3W)

Yes, but as I recall we were pretty infuriated by that seeding at the time. By the numbers Cornell and Miami should have been the 4-5 game that year but were switched to 3-6 for other reasons (can't remember if it was better second round matchup or something else). Cornell had a higher total PWR than Miami, which to date had been the usual way to set seeds. Instead they gave Miami the higher seed because they won the head to head comparison, largely on the strength of their win at Lynah the previous November. Long story short, that's not a really good counter example.

Sure, except for the cold facts of seeds. It still felt great beating future nemesis Mark Mazzolini, who, as rumor had it at the time, told his Miami team not to pack their bags before heading to the arena because they were going to stick around the extra day.  Anyway, you can pick a similar example in nearly every tournament seeding.  IIRC, one of either 2005 or 2006 we were given the 2 seed due to a flip, and you can't say Quinnipiac deserved the 5 seed over Harvard in 2002, but it gave us a very lucky break in the first-round matchup.

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: RichHJust get in, and it's "why not us?"  Yale did exactly that.

Yet another reason why I'd rather be dominating the ECAC every year ::faint::

But the same contributing factors (especially broader dispersion of talented players) have led to Cornell not dominating the ECAC every year and to the wide-open tournament field that RichH mentioned and you seem to agree is a good thing.  I don't know that you can have one without the other.

Quote from: RichHNow you have teams like BSU, RIT, Miami, and UVM making the Frozen Four on a regular basis.  Just get in, and it's "why not us?"  Yale did exactly that.

*snicker*