ELynah Forum

Because numbers talk and clownlover shouldn't.

Clownlover has been all over the place; beside himself that the team is blowing their opportunity in what he declared to be a year where we're supposed to legitimately contend for the national title.

Let's get a little perspective here and look at what we did last year. Did we make a deep run?   Yes.   But arguably we overachieved last year after going on a quite unlikely tear.


11 games in we were 6W-3L-1T-1OTL.

In 2023-2024, The day after our 11th game, our pwr rank was 25th with 40 comparison wins and an rpi of .5239

Including all playoff games, we improbably went 16W-3L-5T the rest of the way.

Now let's compare to this season.

After our 11th game on 12/7, out record stood at
4W-3L-3T-1OTW.

In 2024-2025 The day after our 11th game, our pwr rank was 25th with 39 comparison wins and an rpi of .5231

I don't know what happened last year to get the team on track after the holiday break, but something tells me it was part coaching and quite a bit of run good to over achieve.  Basing expectations for this year on where we finished last year and not looking at how we got there is  a mistake.   So far, this year's team and last year's team are effectively the same.

I think given the ECAC title and the decent showing in the NCAAs, it's easy to forget that we weren't amazing last year.

Going into the ECAC tournament, we were right on the bubble. We wouldn't have been in had we lost in the finals, if I remember.

Quote from: DafatoneGoing into the ECAC tournament, we were right on the bubble. We wouldn't have been in had we lost in the finals, if I remember.

You are correct.

Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82

Quote from: DafatoneGoing into the ECAC tournament, we were right on the bubble. We wouldn't have been in had we lost in the finals, if I remember.

You are correct.

Data.

Our first ECAC tournament game was 3/15/2024.  Here's the PWR from 3/14

I will never understand why the quality win bonus exists

.

idk if "last year's team was also bad" is the flex on bl you think it is.

his primary point has been that we're playing badly and will need to win ECAC to go to NCAAs again, which appears to be true based on last year.

his secondary point, that casey jones was a mistake, is still too soon to tell and a frustrating specific thing to harp on.

can't clown on him for the first point at all.

Quote from: ugarteidk if "last year's team was also bad" is the flex on bl you think it is.

his primary point has been that we're playing badly and will need to win ECAC to go to NCAAs again, which appears to be true based on last year.

his secondary point, that casey jones was a mistake, is still too soon to tell and a frustrating specific thing to harp on.

can't clown on him for the first point at all.

I think he's jumping to a bit of an early conclusion on that.

Basically, we've played a third of the season so far. If this turns out to have been our worst third of the season, we'll be in the hunt for an at large.

Quote from: ugarteidk if "last year's team was also bad" is the flex on bl you think it is.

his primary point has been that we're playing badly and will need to win ECAC to go to NCAAs again, which appears to be true based on last year.

his secondary point, that casey jones was a mistake, is still too soon to tell and a frustrating specific thing to harp on.

can't clown on him for the first point at all.

Just to be clear, I think it's too early to say if CJ was a mistake. I think there are signs the coaching so far this season has been lacking. Also, the fact Clarkson has improved and Princeton has vastly improved on its standing from last season, while Cornell has regressed, is a bearish indicator that we made the right choice. But I'm well aware it's too soon to say. It could also be that this two-head coach structure just doesn't work very well and CJ will be fine once he's the only head coach.

(I'm back from my week-long self-imposed exile and will respond to the original post momentarily.)

Quote from: abmarksBecause numbers talk and clownlover shouldn't.

Clownlover has been all over the place; beside himself that the team is blowing their opportunity in what he declared to be a year where we're supposed to legitimately contend for the national title.

Let's get a little perspective here and look at what we did last year. Did we make a deep run?   Yes.   But arguably we overachieved last year after going on a quite unlikely tear.


11 games in we were 6W-3L-1T-1OTL.

In 2023-2024, The day after our 11th game, our pwr rank was 25th with 40 comparison wins and an rpi of .5239

Including all playoff games, we improbably went 16W-3L-5T the rest of the way.

Now let's compare to this season.

After our 11th game on 12/7, out record stood at
4W-3L-3T-1OTW.

In 2024-2025 The day after our 11th game, our pwr rank was 25th with 39 comparison wins and an rpi of .5231

I don't know what happened last year to get the team on track after the holiday break, but something tells me it was part coaching and quite a bit of run good to over achieve.  Basing expectations for this year on where we finished last year and not looking at how we got there is  a mistake.   So far, this year's team and last year's team are effectively the same.

This is an embarrassing post even by your standards.

1. Trotsky started an ad hom thread in the miscellaneous forum. If you're going to name-call me, why not do it there?

2. If you're going to name-call, can you at least make up an insult that actually makes sense? What is a clownlover? Someone who loves clowns?

3. You claim "I" declared that we're supposed to compete for the national title. Really? How about this season preview article, titled in relevant part "Men's Hockey Eyes a National Title"?
https://cornellsun.com/2024/10/29/season-preview-in-schafers-closing-chapter-no-9-mens-hockey-eyes-a-national-title/
How about being #5 in the national poll before we played a game?  How about being a goal from the frozen four the past two seasons? Everyone thought we could compete for a national title.

4. Your argument that this team has a good opportunity to turn things around relies on...last year's team? The one that went on an incredible second-half run which STILL wasn't enough for an at-large bid? My entire point is that it's going to take another incredible run, and thanks to your astute analysis I see that this run is going to have to be EVEN BETTER than last year's.

5. The fact we went on a run last year really doesn't mean much in general. There were many years our second half was no better, or worse, than our first half. There were years with bad starts and bad finishes.

6. Last year we had 10 freshmen and low expectations. The weak first semester was entirely understandable. Our turnaround also made sense, because of the 10 freshmen coming into their own. Quite the opposite from this year's team: we have one freshman who receives regular playing time and return last year's entire roster minus Seger and a backup goalie.

7. This is Schafer's last season. Schafer only gets one last season. This is the big one. We all want to see him win on his way out, and from that perspective what would normally be a very frustrating start to the season feels (at least to me) many times more disappointing.

This has been, by far, the most disappointing start to a season in my 16 years following Cornell hockey. Maybe others here who have been following for longer can cite some other examples. Honestly, I'd guess this one is the worst. Given the expectations and it being Schafer's last season, this is the most frustrated I've ever been following Cornell hockey.* And knowing me, that's really saying something.


*aside from the 2020 postseason getting canceled. But that was just sad, not frustrating.

We're not in a completely bad spot, we're 22 in the pairwise right now and I see a whole bunch of teams above us that I do not believe can keep up the level of success that they have had. Also I think the ECAC has some more pairwise juice than it did last year. If we go down to Tempe and win this tournament after the break we should be right near a spot to get a bid.

I don't get the bearlover hate. I'm sure I'll get slammed for it, but his opinions almost always seem spot on with mine.

Quote from: toddloseI don't get the bearlover hate. I'm sure I'll get slammed for it, but his opinions almost always seem spot on with mine.

I do complain too much. But I have good opinions :)

Quote from: toddloseI don't get the bearlover hate. I'm sure I'll get slammed for it, but his opinions almost always seem spot on with mine.

Agreed.

Quote from: BearLover1. Trotsky started an ad hom thread in the miscellaneous forum. If you're going to name-call me, why not do it there?

"Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you keep it a secret."

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: BearLover1. Trotsky started an ad hom thread in the miscellaneous forum. If you're going to name-call me, why not do it there?

"Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you keep it a secret."

Gentlemen, this is the War Room.  There's no fighting here!

It's going to get buried in everyone complaining in the ASU game thread so I'll post it in this stupid thread instead:
This team would be well in NCAA position if its special teams were average and Shane played up to his past years' standard. Instead, the special teams are awful and Shane has been awful and now the at-large dream is almost dead.

Did our ST suck last year too?  I am Old, I could be wrong.

BearLover is right though. Do you not watch the games? They look awful

I wish there was a modicum of media attention towards Cornell hockey. The Ithaca Journal apparently no longer exists or doesn't cover hockey anymore, and CHN/the Sun will never ask a negative question of the coach or write a negative story about the team. But it's truly fascinating how badly the team has regressed. So many questions could be asked, so many things could be studied:
What's the division of coaching duties? Was Casey ready and willing to adjust to being an assistant again? Did Cornell change its structure/systems before this season? Why is Shane having by far his worst season in four years, as a senior? What happened with Keoppel, how come he never developed at all? What happened to Castagna and Robertson, why have they regressed despite all the preseason hype? How did so many players get injured before the season began? And most of all: why wasn't Syer offered the position?

Usually when a team wildly undershoots expectations, people demand answers. It's too bad no one will ever ask the questions.

Quote from: BearLoverI wish there was a modicum of media attention towards Cornell hockey. The Ithaca Journal apparently no longer exists or doesn't cover hockey anymore, and CHN/the Sun will never ask a negative question of the coach or write a negative story about the team. But it's truly fascinating how badly the team has regressed. So many questions could be asked, so many things could be studied:
What's the division of coaching duties? Was Casey ready and willing to adjust to being an assistant again? Did Cornell change its structure/systems before this season? Why is Shane having by far his worst season in four years, as a senior? What happened with Keoppel, how come he never developed at all? What happened to Castagna and Robertson, why have they regressed despite all the preseason hype? How did so many players get injured before the season began? And most of all: why wasn't Syer offered the position?

Usually when a team wildly undershoots expectations, people demand answers. It's too bad no one will ever ask the questions.

A few more questions:
What happened to DeSantis (why has he regressed the hardest of anybody)? Why did Donaldson never develop, and what, exactly, did he do in the third period at Colgate?

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: BearLoverI wish there was a modicum of media attention towards Cornell hockey. The Ithaca Journal apparently no longer exists or doesn't cover hockey anymore, and CHN/the Sun will never ask a negative question of the coach or write a negative story about the team. But it's truly fascinating how badly the team has regressed. So many questions could be asked, so many things could be studied:
What's the division of coaching duties? Was Casey ready and willing to adjust to being an assistant again? Did Cornell change its structure/systems before this season? Why is Shane having by far his worst season in four years, as a senior? What happened with Keoppel, how come he never developed at all? What happened to Castagna and Robertson, why have they regressed despite all the preseason hype? How did so many players get injured before the season began? And most of all: why wasn't Syer offered the position?

Usually when a team wildly undershoots expectations, people demand answers. It's too bad no one will ever ask the questions.

A few more questions:
What happened to DeSantis (why has he regressed the hardest of anybody)? Why did Donaldson never develop, and what, exactly, did he do in the third period at Colgate?

All interesting and relevant questions. Cornell hockey is in a funny position. A semi major D-1 program but at a school which does not prioritize sports and in a tiny market. So no questions will be asked. If this were Michigan or Minnesota the questions would be asked.

Quote from: arugulaA semi major D-1 program but at a school which does not prioritize sports and in a tiny market. So no questions will be asked. If this were Michigan or Minnesota the questions would be asked.

I'm actually okay with this, because I translate "questions will be asked" to "a parasitic hack media thirsty for clicks will cynically whip adolescents into a froth every time something goes wrong."  There is a reason why Boston and New York have the country's most reactionary, twitchy, and immature fans.  The impatient and the chronically outraged are coddled there for their eye balls, and because of it everybody has to suffer their juvenile rants.

Cornell hockey is important enough to the alumni who support the program that failure to succeed over a non-trivial interval will be noticed and punished. Have no fear.  Lou Reycroft and Brian McCutcheon called.  But that isn't what we're looking at.  We're looking at a presumptive top team barely performing within the top 25.  That is, underperformance against the standard set by the very staff the Pampers Crowd would now immolate because baby missed its feeding once. The gobsmacking entitlement of whining this season, a year removed from a conference title and a Frozen Four near miss, isn't the team.

It's you fuckers.

Cornell has outscored its opponents this season, 38-33. Cornell has 5 power-play goals and 2 shorthanded scores. Opponents have 11 power-play goals and 1 shorthanded. At even strength, Cornell has outscored its opponents, 31-21.

Quote from: dbilmesCornell has 5 power-play goals ... Opponents have 11 power-play goals

Flip those numbers and I'll bet we're top 10, if not top 5.

Actually, let's do that.  I'll go through every game and just reverse the ppg -- i.e., if it's ours it's theirs.
[b]Gm. Act   PPG  New[/b]
 1. 4-1 W 0-0  4-1 W NDak
 2. 5-3 W 0-0  5-3 W NDak
 3. 2-2 T 0-2  4-0 [b][color=#FF0000]W[/color][/b] Yal
 4. 3-1 W 0-0  3-1 W Brn
 5. 3-4 L 0-2  5-2 [b][color=#FF0000]W[/b] @ Drt
 6. 2-2 T 1-0  1-3 [b][color=#FF0000]L[/b] @ Hvd
 7. 1-3 L 0-1  2-2 [b][color=#FF0000]T[/b] Qpc
 8. 5-0 W 2-0  3-2 W Prn
 9. 3-3 T 0-1  4-2 [b][color=#FF0000]W[/b] v Qpc
10. 3-2 W 1-1  3-2 W Cgt
11. 3-6 L 1-2  4-5 L @ Cgt
12. 4-2 W 0-1  5-1 W v UMass
13. 0-4 L 0-1  1-3 L @ ASU


9-3-1 Overall, 5-2-1 ECAC.

I don't know how to ask PWR counterfactuals to get our new PWR after changing those results.

I'm less worried about the special teams (the PP looked functional this weekend, if not quite good, and the PK has seemed better than the results so far) than I am about Shane.

He's had rough stretches before, but a third of the season with a save percentage below .900 is not good and uncomfortably close to bad.

Put his save percentage at .920 or so, he stops another 7 or 8 shots, and maybe this season looks different.

A lot of this was ASU turtling in the third, but I thought we played them pretty evenly as far as flow of play went (other than that one firing range stretch that became a goal, I think it was the third goal).

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: arugulaA semi major D-1 program but at a school which does not prioritize sports and in a tiny market. So no questions will be asked. If this were Michigan or Minnesota the questions would be asked.

I'm actually okay with this, because I translate "questions will be asked" to "a parasitic hack media thirsty for clicks will cynically whip adolescents into a froth every time something goes wrong."

Honestly, this is partially why I'm never too pressed about the losses. It sucks! Yeah! But I really don't think putting a twenty-
What the fuck Castagna is an entire year younger than me???
Putting a nineteen- or twenty-one-year-old on blast in all of Ithaca is going to help anything. We're not a Michigan or Minnesota; we don't have those kinds of resources and we don't need to have that kind of pressure.
The way a lot of people here talk about this team, they expect it to be on par with top teams like Denver or BC. Just looking at the EliteProspects pages, Denver has 13 NHL-drafted players on its squad. BC has 12 plus Hagens. These include first round picks (Buium, Leonard, Perreault) who are almost guaranteed to be very good NHL players. We have 6 NHL-drafted players. Our highest-ranked drafted players are third rounders (Castagna and Fegaras). Top prospect talent is not going to be coming to Cornell. Sure, the machine is greater than the sum of its parts. I agree. But "winning a natty for Schaefer", while it would be awesome, isn't a reasonable goal to have. And treating the team like it should be undefeated and Frozen Four-bound "because Cornell" is frankly kind of ridiculous.
Where am I even going with this? Right. Having a bunch of jabronis writing clickbait about what Tim Rego eats before games isn't going to do anything. Neither is writing about Top 10 Cornell Players Who Need To Do Better. Please, dear God, stop commercializing college hockey and college students. What do you genuinely think you're going to get other than the same vapid soundbites you get at the NHL level?

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: arugulaA semi major D-1 program but at a school which does not prioritize sports and in a tiny market. So no questions will be asked. If this were Michigan or Minnesota the questions would be asked.

I'm actually okay with this, because I translate "questions will be asked" to "a parasitic hack media thirsty for clicks will cynically whip adolescents into a froth every time something goes wrong."  There is a reason why Boston and New York have the country's most reactionary, twitchy, and immature fans.  The impatient and the chronically outraged are coddled there for their eye balls, and because of it everybody has to suffer their juvenile rants.

Cornell hockey is important enough to the alumni who support the program that failure to succeed over a non-trivial interval will be noticed and punished. Have no fear.  Lou Reycroft and Brian McCutcheon called.  But that isn't what we're looking at.  We're looking at a presumptive top team barely performing within the top 25.  That is, underperformance against the standard set by the very staff the Pampers Crowd would now immolate because baby missed its feeding once. The gobsmacking entitlement of whining this season, a year removed from a conference title and a Frozen Four near miss, isn't the team.

It's you fuckers.

I agree. Just pointing out why those questions aren't asked. I well remember Reycroft. Essentially had one very good season in five, recruited Dadswell and Neuwendyk and got shit canned. So yes it's comparing slightly above average to the usual Schafer standard of excellent or close to it.  Just a shame it happens this year.

Quote from: BearLover6. Last year we had 10 freshmen and low expectations. The weak first semester was entirely understandable. Our turnaround also made sense, because of the 10 freshmen coming into their own. Quite the opposite from this year's team: we have one freshman who receives regular playing time and return last year's entire roster minus Seger and a backup goalie.

Last year, you cried bloody murder when I said the team would be better than the year before despite the turnover. You were dancing on the proverbial grave after the slow start. I gave all the reasons why I had confidence in this, mainly having to do with Mike Schafer's ability to improve teams as the year goes on. Then ... this happened. Now, you're back to crabbing about "coaching" and blah blah - despite all evidence to the contrary. SMH.

Quote from: BearLoverand CHN/the Sun will never ask a negative question of the coach or write a negative story about the team.

lol that you think this is true ... maybe you should listen to our podcast too. But it's just one of the laundry list of things you will harp ad nauseum that is very false. Any lack of "tough questions" and criticism of Cornell that you fail to see on CHN has to do with a) there's usually no reason to; b) I'm not going to write criticism just to satisfy non-sensical fan blathering ... I don't do that about ANY team in the country ... However, I also do it where it's needed - maybe pay more attention ... c) I have 64 teams to cover, so you're not going to get what you want most of the time.

You definitely want to listen to this week's podcast when it's out.

And yes, it's pathetic the Ithaca Journal no longer covers the team.  Unfortunately -- I know most people here live in a Cornell knowledge bubble -- but this is the case all over the country.  And it sucks.  However, the IJ wasn't asking any tough questions when they did, I assure you.  And probably 99% of places all over the country don't do that either.

Quote from: adamw

Quote from: BearLoverand CHN/the Sun will never ask a negative question of the coach or write a negative story about the team.

lol that you think this is true ... maybe you should listen to our podcast too. But it's just one of the laundry list of things you will harp ad nauseum that is very false. Any lack of "tough questions" and criticism of Cornell that you fail to see on CHN has to do with a) there's usually no reason to; b) I'm not going to write criticism just to satisfy non-sensical fan blathering ... I don't do that about ANY team in the country ... However, I also do it where it's needed - maybe pay more attention ... c) I have 64 teams to cover, so you're not going to get what you want most of the time.

You definitely want to listen to this week's podcast when it's out.

And yes, it's pathetic the Ithaca Journal no longer covers the team.  Unfortunately -- I know most people here live in a Cornell knowledge bubble -- but this is the case all over the country.  And it sucks.  However, the IJ wasn't asking any tough questions when they did, I assure you.  And probably 99% of places all over the country don't do that either.

I read many of the stories on your site and they're all positive. I get it—these are college kids who don't deserve criticism heaped on them, and you need to maintain good relationships with your sources—the same goes for the Sun. I just wish there were more investigative reporting. I'll listen to the podcast, thanks for the rec.

Quote from: adamw

Quote from: BearLover6. Last year we had 10 freshmen and low expectations. The weak first semester was entirely understandable. Our turnaround also made sense, because of the 10 freshmen coming into their own. Quite the opposite from this year's team: we have one freshman who receives regular playing time and return last year's entire roster minus Seger and a backup goalie.

Last year, you cried bloody murder when I said the team would be better than the year before despite the turnover. You were dancing on the proverbial grave after the slow start. I gave all the reasons why I had confidence in this, mainly having to do with Mike Schafer's ability to improve teams as the year goes on. Then ... this happened. Now, you're back to crabbing about "coaching" and blah blah - despite all evidence to the contrary. SMH.

Honestly, I think it's clear there's a coaching issue this year. The team is out of sync, the special teams are horrible. Compared to last year, it's basically same Cornell roster, with different Cornell coaches, and we've significantly regressed. Old Cornell coach goes to Princeton, they significantly improve. New Cornell coach comes from Clarkson, they significantly improve under their new coach.

I mean, when the entire team underperforms so badly and so consistently, whose fault is it? What's a better explanation?

I think it's very likely Syer was a big piece of Cornell's success the past decade, and he's gone now. The jury is still out on Casey. Early returns aren't good, but he hasn't been given a remotely fair shake yet. What I am much more confident in is that the coaching staff as a whole is struggling. I don't know how much of that is Schafer starting to take a step back, how much of it is Casey and the new assistant learning the ropes, how much of it is having two head coaches and not enough assistants. This does not mean that Schafer or Casey or anyone is a bad coach. I never said that, obviously. Not sure why blaming the coaching is controversial, anyway. I think many on this forum are starting to feel similarly that there may be a problem.

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: adamw

Quote from: BearLover6. Last year we had 10 freshmen and low expectations. The weak first semester was entirely understandable. Our turnaround also made sense, because of the 10 freshmen coming into their own. Quite the opposite from this year's team: we have one freshman who receives regular playing time and return last year's entire roster minus Seger and a backup goalie.

Last year, you cried bloody murder when I said the team would be better than the year before despite the turnover. You were dancing on the proverbial grave after the slow start. I gave all the reasons why I had confidence in this, mainly having to do with Mike Schafer's ability to improve teams as the year goes on. Then ... this happened. Now, you're back to crabbing about "coaching" and blah blah - despite all evidence to the contrary. SMH.

Honestly, I think it's clear there's a coaching issue this year. The team is out of sync, the special teams are horrible. Compared to last year, it's basically same Cornell roster, with different Cornell coaches, and we've significantly regressed. Old Cornell coach goes to Princeton, they significantly improve. New Cornell coach comes from Clarkson, they significantly improve under their new coach.

I mean, when the entire team underperforms so badly and so consistently, whose fault is it? What's a better explanation?

I think it's very likely Syer was a big piece of Cornell's success the past decade, and he's gone now. The jury is still out on Casey. Early returns aren't good, but he hasn't been given a remotely fair shake yet. What I am much more confident in is that the coaching staff as a whole is struggling. I don't know how much of that is Schafer starting to take a step back, how much of it is Casey and the new assistant learning the ropes, how much of it is having two head coaches and not enough assistants. This does not mean that Schafer or Casey or anyone is a bad coach. I never said that, obviously. Not sure why blaming the coaching is controversial, anyway. I think many on this forum are starting to feel similarly that there may be a problem.

The logical leaps here are laughably off the charts. Work on your deductive reasoning skills.

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: adamw

Quote from: BearLoverand CHN/the Sun will never ask a negative question of the coach or write a negative story about the team.

lol that you think this is true ... maybe you should listen to our podcast too. But it's just one of the laundry list of things you will harp ad nauseum that is very false. Any lack of "tough questions" and criticism of Cornell that you fail to see on CHN has to do with a) there's usually no reason to; b) I'm not going to write criticism just to satisfy non-sensical fan blathering ... I don't do that about ANY team in the country ... However, I also do it where it's needed - maybe pay more attention ... c) I have 64 teams to cover, so you're not going to get what you want most of the time.

You definitely want to listen to this week's podcast when it's out.

And yes, it's pathetic the Ithaca Journal no longer covers the team.  Unfortunately -- I know most people here live in a Cornell knowledge bubble -- but this is the case all over the country.  And it sucks.  However, the IJ wasn't asking any tough questions when they did, I assure you.  And probably 99% of places all over the country don't do that either.

I read many of the stories on your site and they're all positive. I get it—these are college kids who don't deserve criticism heaped on them, and you need to maintain good relationships with your sources—the same goes for the Sun. I just wish there were more investigative reporting. I'll listen to the podcast, thanks for the rec.

You definitely haven't followed me for 30 years (understandable) if you think this is true about me or the site I run. We are not a PR firm - and I also don't believe in hatchet jobs and blog-like off the cuff ranting. You haven't seen my social media or listened to the podcast if you think all I do is praise Cornell every minute.

As for "investigative reporting" -- heh, we have done more "investigative reporting" of ACTUAL issues than anyone in college hockey media, times 50. You have no idea what you're saying here, about me or the site.  Looking into whether 1 of 64 teams is having "coaching issues" with a 30-year head coach with a track record of wild success just because they have had an inconsistent, disappointing start, is not the definition of "investigative reporting." LOL. Please get over yourself.

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: adamw

Quote from: BearLover6. Last year we had 10 freshmen and low expectations. The weak first semester was entirely understandable. Our turnaround also made sense, because of the 10 freshmen coming into their own. Quite the opposite from this year's team: we have one freshman who receives regular playing time and return last year's entire roster minus Seger and a backup goalie.

Last year, you cried bloody murder when I said the team would be better than the year before despite the turnover. You were dancing on the proverbial grave after the slow start. I gave all the reasons why I had confidence in this, mainly having to do with Mike Schafer's ability to improve teams as the year goes on. Then ... this happened. Now, you're back to crabbing about "coaching" and blah blah - despite all evidence to the contrary. SMH.

Honestly, I think it's clear there's a coaching issue this year. The team is out of sync, the special teams are horrible. Compared to last year, it's basically same Cornell roster, with different Cornell coaches, and we've significantly regressed. Old Cornell coach goes to Princeton, they significantly improve. New Cornell coach comes from Clarkson, they significantly improve under their new coach.

I mean, when the entire team underperforms so badly and so consistently, whose fault is it? What's a better explanation?

I think it's very likely Syer was a big piece of Cornell's success the past decade, and he's gone now. The jury is still out on Casey. Early returns aren't good, but he hasn't been given a remotely fair shake yet. What I am much more confident in is that the coaching staff as a whole is struggling. I don't know how much of that is Schafer starting to take a step back, how much of it is Casey and the new assistant learning the ropes, how much of it is having two head coaches and not enough assistants. This does not mean that Schafer or Casey or anyone is a bad coach. I never said that, obviously. Not sure why blaming the coaching is controversial, anyway. I think many on this forum are starting to feel similarly that there may be a problem.

See, watching the team, I see it pretty differently. We look fine if not great, flow of play is solid, we can skate with the best teams we've seen.

Shane giving up a few soft goals is the difference.

That and the PP being a disaster, I'll give you that. It's improved, at least.

Quote from: adamw

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: adamw

Quote from: BearLoverand CHN/the Sun will never ask a negative question of the coach or write a negative story about the team.

lol that you think this is true ... maybe you should listen to our podcast too. But it's just one of the laundry list of things you will harp ad nauseum that is very false. Any lack of "tough questions" and criticism of Cornell that you fail to see on CHN has to do with a) there's usually no reason to; b) I'm not going to write criticism just to satisfy non-sensical fan blathering ... I don't do that about ANY team in the country ... However, I also do it where it's needed - maybe pay more attention ... c) I have 64 teams to cover, so you're not going to get what you want most of the time.

You definitely want to listen to this week's podcast when it's out.

And yes, it's pathetic the Ithaca Journal no longer covers the team.  Unfortunately -- I know most people here live in a Cornell knowledge bubble -- but this is the case all over the country.  And it sucks.  However, the IJ wasn't asking any tough questions when they did, I assure you.  And probably 99% of places all over the country don't do that either.

I read many of the stories on your site and they're all positive. I get it—these are college kids who don't deserve criticism heaped on them, and you need to maintain good relationships with your sources—the same goes for the Sun. I just wish there were more investigative reporting. I'll listen to the podcast, thanks for the rec.

You definitely haven't followed me for 30 years (understandable) if you think this is true about me or the site I run. We are not a PR firm - and I also don't believe in hatchet jobs and blog-like off the cuff ranting. You haven't seen my social media or listened to the podcast if you think all I do is praise Cornell every minute.

As for "investigative reporting" -- heh, we have done more "investigative reporting" of ACTUAL issues than anyone in college hockey media, times 50. You have no idea what you're saying here, about me or the site.  Looking into whether 1 of 64 teams is having "coaching issues" with a 30-year head coach with a track record of wild success just because they have had an inconsistent, disappointing start, is not the definition of "investigative reporting." LOL. Please get over yourself.

Dude, what? I'm not demanding CHN cover anything. I'm merely lamenting that all these burning questions will never be answered. There are thousands of Cornell fans interested in why this season has been a colossal disappointment. It seems unlikely that CHN, the Sun, or anyone else will dig into this, so we will never know. I'm sorry that you read into my posts a sense of entitlement or whatever else you keep inferring.

Quote from: Dafatone

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: adamw

Quote from: BearLover6. Last year we had 10 freshmen and low expectations. The weak first semester was entirely understandable. Our turnaround also made sense, because of the 10 freshmen coming into their own. Quite the opposite from this year's team: we have one freshman who receives regular playing time and return last year's entire roster minus Seger and a backup goalie.

Last year, you cried bloody murder when I said the team would be better than the year before despite the turnover. You were dancing on the proverbial grave after the slow start. I gave all the reasons why I had confidence in this, mainly having to do with Mike Schafer's ability to improve teams as the year goes on. Then ... this happened. Now, you're back to crabbing about "coaching" and blah blah - despite all evidence to the contrary. SMH.

Honestly, I think it's clear there's a coaching issue this year. The team is out of sync, the special teams are horrible. Compared to last year, it's basically same Cornell roster, with different Cornell coaches, and we've significantly regressed. Old Cornell coach goes to Princeton, they significantly improve. New Cornell coach comes from Clarkson, they significantly improve under their new coach.

I mean, when the entire team underperforms so badly and so consistently, whose fault is it? What's a better explanation?

I think it's very likely Syer was a big piece of Cornell's success the past decade, and he's gone now. The jury is still out on Casey. Early returns aren't good, but he hasn't been given a remotely fair shake yet. What I am much more confident in is that the coaching staff as a whole is struggling. I don't know how much of that is Schafer starting to take a step back, how much of it is Casey and the new assistant learning the ropes, how much of it is having two head coaches and not enough assistants. This does not mean that Schafer or Casey or anyone is a bad coach. I never said that, obviously. Not sure why blaming the coaching is controversial, anyway. I think many on this forum are starting to feel similarly that there may be a problem.

See, watching the team, I see it pretty differently. We look fine if not great, flow of play is solid, we can skate with the best teams we've seen.

Shane giving up a few soft goals is the difference.

That and the PP being a disaster, I'll give you that. It's improved, at least.

Tend to think this is true.  In our best years, our margin for error was extremely small.  This year, we're falling more on the wrong side of that line than in more successful years, but the margin for error is still tight and could just as easily go the other way.  The expected goals against ASU suggested a Cornell 4-2 win.  So if Ian tightens up and we can finish a chance in the first period of a game for once, things will change quickly.  Seeing a player like Bancroft-size, speed, some skill, yet undrafted, suggests to me a classic Cornell player--everything but the finish.  If he could finish better, he'd have been drafted and/or would be at Michigan or Denver or some such. That's kind of our season in a nutshell

Quote from: adamw

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: adamw

Quote from: BearLover6. Last year we had 10 freshmen and low expectations. The weak first semester was entirely understandable. Our turnaround also made sense, because of the 10 freshmen coming into their own. Quite the opposite from this year's team: we have one freshman who receives regular playing time and return last year's entire roster minus Seger and a backup goalie.

Last year, you cried bloody murder when I said the team would be better than the year before despite the turnover. You were dancing on the proverbial grave after the slow start. I gave all the reasons why I had confidence in this, mainly having to do with Mike Schafer's ability to improve teams as the year goes on. Then ... this happened. Now, you're back to crabbing about "coaching" and blah blah - despite all evidence to the contrary. SMH.

Honestly, I think it's clear there's a coaching issue this year. The team is out of sync, the special teams are horrible. Compared to last year, it's basically same Cornell roster, with different Cornell coaches, and we've significantly regressed. Old Cornell coach goes to Princeton, they significantly improve. New Cornell coach comes from Clarkson, they significantly improve under their new coach.

I mean, when the entire team underperforms so badly and so consistently, whose fault is it? What's a better explanation?

I think it's very likely Syer was a big piece of Cornell's success the past decade, and he's gone now. The jury is still out on Casey. Early returns aren't good, but he hasn't been given a remotely fair shake yet. What I am much more confident in is that the coaching staff as a whole is struggling. I don't know how much of that is Schafer starting to take a step back, how much of it is Casey and the new assistant learning the ropes, how much of it is having two head coaches and not enough assistants. This does not mean that Schafer or Casey or anyone is a bad coach. I never said that, obviously. Not sure why blaming the coaching is controversial, anyway. I think many on this forum are starting to feel similarly that there may be a problem.

The logical leaps here are laughably off the charts. Work on your deductive reasoning skills.

Yawn. As usual, just direct insults and zero engagement with the substance. I asked, "what's a better explanation [than coaching issues] for the entire team underforming so badly?" and you couldn't even answer that!

Quote from: arugula

Quote from: Dafatone

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: adamw

Quote from: BearLover6. Last year we had 10 freshmen and low expectations. The weak first semester was entirely understandable. Our turnaround also made sense, because of the 10 freshmen coming into their own. Quite the opposite from this year's team: we have one freshman who receives regular playing time and return last year's entire roster minus Seger and a backup goalie.

Last year, you cried bloody murder when I said the team would be better than the year before despite the turnover. You were dancing on the proverbial grave after the slow start. I gave all the reasons why I had confidence in this, mainly having to do with Mike Schafer's ability to improve teams as the year goes on. Then ... this happened. Now, you're back to crabbing about "coaching" and blah blah - despite all evidence to the contrary. SMH.

Honestly, I think it's clear there's a coaching issue this year. The team is out of sync, the special teams are horrible. Compared to last year, it's basically same Cornell roster, with different Cornell coaches, and we've significantly regressed. Old Cornell coach goes to Princeton, they significantly improve. New Cornell coach comes from Clarkson, they significantly improve under their new coach.

I mean, when the entire team underperforms so badly and so consistently, whose fault is it? What's a better explanation?

I think it's very likely Syer was a big piece of Cornell's success the past decade, and he's gone now. The jury is still out on Casey. Early returns aren't good, but he hasn't been given a remotely fair shake yet. What I am much more confident in is that the coaching staff as a whole is struggling. I don't know how much of that is Schafer starting to take a step back, how much of it is Casey and the new assistant learning the ropes, how much of it is having two head coaches and not enough assistants. This does not mean that Schafer or Casey or anyone is a bad coach. I never said that, obviously. Not sure why blaming the coaching is controversial, anyway. I think many on this forum are starting to feel similarly that there may be a problem.

See, watching the team, I see it pretty differently. We look fine if not great, flow of play is solid, we can skate with the best teams we've seen.

Shane giving up a few soft goals is the difference.

That and the PP being a disaster, I'll give you that. It's improved, at least.

Tend to think this is true.  In our best years, our margin for error was extremely small.  This year, we're falling more on the wrong side of that line than in more successful years, but the margin for error is still tight and could just as easily go the other way.  The expected goals against ASU suggested a Cornell 4-2 win.  So if Ian tightens up and we can finish a chance in the first period of a game for once, things will change quickly.  Seeing a player like Bancroft-size, speed, some skill, yet undrafted, suggests to me a classic Cornell player--everything but the finish.  If he could finish better, he'd have been drafted and/or would be at Michigan or Denver or some such. That's kind of our season in a nutshell

Where did you see that xG thing? That is insane, if true.

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: arugula

Quote from: Dafatone

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: adamw

Quote from: BearLover6. Last year we had 10 freshmen and low expectations. The weak first semester was entirely understandable. Our turnaround also made sense, because of the 10 freshmen coming into their own. Quite the opposite from this year's team: we have one freshman who receives regular playing time and return last year's entire roster minus Seger and a backup goalie.

Last year, you cried bloody murder when I said the team would be better than the year before despite the turnover. You were dancing on the proverbial grave after the slow start. I gave all the reasons why I had confidence in this, mainly having to do with Mike Schafer's ability to improve teams as the year goes on. Then ... this happened. Now, you're back to crabbing about "coaching" and blah blah - despite all evidence to the contrary. SMH.

Honestly, I think it's clear there's a coaching issue this year. The team is out of sync, the special teams are horrible. Compared to last year, it's basically same Cornell roster, with different Cornell coaches, and we've significantly regressed. Old Cornell coach goes to Princeton, they significantly improve. New Cornell coach comes from Clarkson, they significantly improve under their new coach.

I mean, when the entire team underperforms so badly and so consistently, whose fault is it? What's a better explanation?

I think it's very likely Syer was a big piece of Cornell's success the past decade, and he's gone now. The jury is still out on Casey. Early returns aren't good, but he hasn't been given a remotely fair shake yet. What I am much more confident in is that the coaching staff as a whole is struggling. I don't know how much of that is Schafer starting to take a step back, how much of it is Casey and the new assistant learning the ropes, how much of it is having two head coaches and not enough assistants. This does not mean that Schafer or Casey or anyone is a bad coach. I never said that, obviously. Not sure why blaming the coaching is controversial, anyway. I think many on this forum are starting to feel similarly that there may be a problem.

See, watching the team, I see it pretty differently. We look fine if not great, flow of play is solid, we can skate with the best teams we've seen.

Shane giving up a few soft goals is the difference.

That and the PP being a disaster, I'll give you that. It's improved, at least.

Tend to think this is true.  In our best years, our margin for error was extremely small.  This year, we're falling more on the wrong side of that line than in more successful years, but the margin for error is still tight and could just as easily go the other way.  The expected goals against ASU suggested a Cornell 4-2 win.  So if Ian tightens up and we can finish a chance in the first period of a game for once, things will change quickly.  Seeing a player like Bancroft-size, speed, some skill, yet undrafted, suggests to me a classic Cornell player--everything but the finish.  If he could finish better, he'd have been drafted and/or would be at Michigan or Denver or some such. That's kind of our season in a nutshell

Where did you see that xG thing? That is insane, if true.

Part of that might be that ASU played a more defensive third period

Quote from: Dafatone

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: adamw

Quote from: BearLover6. Last year we had 10 freshmen and low expectations. The weak first semester was entirely understandable. Our turnaround also made sense, because of the 10 freshmen coming into their own. Quite the opposite from this year's team: we have one freshman who receives regular playing time and return last year's entire roster minus Seger and a backup goalie.

Last year, you cried bloody murder when I said the team would be better than the year before despite the turnover. You were dancing on the proverbial grave after the slow start. I gave all the reasons why I had confidence in this, mainly having to do with Mike Schafer's ability to improve teams as the year goes on. Then ... this happened. Now, you're back to crabbing about "coaching" and blah blah - despite all evidence to the contrary. SMH.

Honestly, I think it's clear there's a coaching issue this year. The team is out of sync, the special teams are horrible. Compared to last year, it's basically same Cornell roster, with different Cornell coaches, and we've significantly regressed. Old Cornell coach goes to Princeton, they significantly improve. New Cornell coach comes from Clarkson, they significantly improve under their new coach.

I mean, when the entire team underperforms so badly and so consistently, whose fault is it? What's a better explanation?

I think it's very likely Syer was a big piece of Cornell's success the past decade, and he's gone now. The jury is still out on Casey. Early returns aren't good, but he hasn't been given a remotely fair shake yet. What I am much more confident in is that the coaching staff as a whole is struggling. I don't know how much of that is Schafer starting to take a step back, how much of it is Casey and the new assistant learning the ropes, how much of it is having two head coaches and not enough assistants. This does not mean that Schafer or Casey or anyone is a bad coach. I never said that, obviously. Not sure why blaming the coaching is controversial, anyway. I think many on this forum are starting to feel similarly that there may be a problem.

See, watching the team, I see it pretty differently. We look fine if not great, flow of play is solid, we can skate with the best teams we've seen.

Shane giving up a few soft goals is the difference.

That and the PP being a disaster, I'll give you that. It's improved, at least.

I agree with you that we'd be in much better shape if our PP and goaltending were decent instead of very bad. But that's probably true of most teams in the country: turn their two worst attributes into positives and suddenly they're 15+ spots higher in the PWR.

If we're winning on thin margins, that just means we aren't very good. BC and Denver don't win on thin margins. I look at possession and shot totals from this season and see a team that is slightly above average, which is a big disappointment.

There's still some disconnect here with respect to expectations. Last season we had significant roster turnover and so I didn't expect a good first half. This year we had almost no roster turnover so I expected a great first half. Everybody was thinking this team was capable of a Frozen Four run before the season began. From that perspective, even being on the bubble would be disappointing. Instead, we're almost locked out of an at-large midway through the season. So to me, yeah, Shane being decent + PP being decent would make a huge difference, but that doesn't come close to explaining this season's disappointment. I see tons of mistakes and nobody on the team having taken a step forward. Castagna, Robertson, DeSantis, the list goes on and on. It's the whole team, honestly.

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: arugula

Quote from: Dafatone

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: adamw

Quote from: BearLover6. Last year we had 10 freshmen and low expectations. The weak first semester was entirely understandable. Our turnaround also made sense, because of the 10 freshmen coming into their own. Quite the opposite from this year's team: we have one freshman who receives regular playing time and return last year's entire roster minus Seger and a backup goalie.

Last year, you cried bloody murder when I said the team would be better than the year before despite the turnover. You were dancing on the proverbial grave after the slow start. I gave all the reasons why I had confidence in this, mainly having to do with Mike Schafer's ability to improve teams as the year goes on. Then ... this happened. Now, you're back to crabbing about "coaching" and blah blah - despite all evidence to the contrary. SMH.

Honestly, I think it's clear there's a coaching issue this year. The team is out of sync, the special teams are horrible. Compared to last year, it's basically same Cornell roster, with different Cornell coaches, and we've significantly regressed. Old Cornell coach goes to Princeton, they significantly improve. New Cornell coach comes from Clarkson, they significantly improve under their new coach.

I mean, when the entire team underperforms so badly and so consistently, whose fault is it? What's a better explanation?

I think it's very likely Syer was a big piece of Cornell's success the past decade, and he's gone now. The jury is still out on Casey. Early returns aren't good, but he hasn't been given a remotely fair shake yet. What I am much more confident in is that the coaching staff as a whole is struggling. I don't know how much of that is Schafer starting to take a step back, how much of it is Casey and the new assistant learning the ropes, how much of it is having two head coaches and not enough assistants. This does not mean that Schafer or Casey or anyone is a bad coach. I never said that, obviously. Not sure why blaming the coaching is controversial, anyway. I think many on this forum are starting to feel similarly that there may be a problem.

See, watching the team, I see it pretty differently. We look fine if not great, flow of play is solid, we can skate with the best teams we've seen.

Shane giving up a few soft goals is the difference.

That and the PP being a disaster, I'll give you that. It's improved, at least.

Tend to think this is true.  In our best years, our margin for error was extremely small.  This year, we're falling more on the wrong side of that line than in more successful years, but the margin for error is still tight and could just as easily go the other way.  The expected goals against ASU suggested a Cornell 4-2 win.  So if Ian tightens up and we can finish a chance in the first period of a game for once, things will change quickly.  Seeing a player like Bancroft-size, speed, some skill, yet undrafted, suggests to me a classic Cornell player--everything but the finish.  If he could finish better, he'd have been drafted and/or would be at Michigan or Denver or some such. That's kind of our season in a nutshell

Where did you see that xG thing? That is insane, if true.

CHN

From the box score, next to total FO stats.

Quote from: arugula

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: arugula

Quote from: Dafatone

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: adamw

Quote from: BearLover6. Last year we had 10 freshmen and low expectations. The weak first semester was entirely understandable. Our turnaround also made sense, because of the 10 freshmen coming into their own. Quite the opposite from this year's team: we have one freshman who receives regular playing time and return last year's entire roster minus Seger and a backup goalie.

Last year, you cried bloody murder when I said the team would be better than the year before despite the turnover. You were dancing on the proverbial grave after the slow start. I gave all the reasons why I had confidence in this, mainly having to do with Mike Schafer's ability to improve teams as the year goes on. Then ... this happened. Now, you're back to crabbing about "coaching" and blah blah - despite all evidence to the contrary. SMH.

Honestly, I think it's clear there's a coaching issue this year. The team is out of sync, the special teams are horrible. Compared to last year, it's basically same Cornell roster, with different Cornell coaches, and we've significantly regressed. Old Cornell coach goes to Princeton, they significantly improve. New Cornell coach comes from Clarkson, they significantly improve under their new coach.

I mean, when the entire team underperforms so badly and so consistently, whose fault is it? What's a better explanation?

I think it's very likely Syer was a big piece of Cornell's success the past decade, and he's gone now. The jury is still out on Casey. Early returns aren't good, but he hasn't been given a remotely fair shake yet. What I am much more confident in is that the coaching staff as a whole is struggling. I don't know how much of that is Schafer starting to take a step back, how much of it is Casey and the new assistant learning the ropes, how much of it is having two head coaches and not enough assistants. This does not mean that Schafer or Casey or anyone is a bad coach. I never said that, obviously. Not sure why blaming the coaching is controversial, anyway. I think many on this forum are starting to feel similarly that there may be a problem.

See, watching the team, I see it pretty differently. We look fine if not great, flow of play is solid, we can skate with the best teams we've seen.

Shane giving up a few soft goals is the difference.

That and the PP being a disaster, I'll give you that. It's improved, at least.

Tend to think this is true.  In our best years, our margin for error was extremely small.  This year, we're falling more on the wrong side of that line than in more successful years, but the margin for error is still tight and could just as easily go the other way.  The expected goals against ASU suggested a Cornell 4-2 win.  So if Ian tightens up and we can finish a chance in the first period of a game for once, things will change quickly.  Seeing a player like Bancroft-size, speed, some skill, yet undrafted, suggests to me a classic Cornell player--everything but the finish.  If he could finish better, he'd have been drafted and/or would be at Michigan or Denver or some such. That's kind of our season in a nutshell

Where did you see that xG thing? That is insane, if true.

CHN

Thanks. As far as I can tell, the CHN version of xG does not take into account what type of shot it was (backhand, wrist shot, etc.) but only where on the ice it was taken. Still, way better than nothing I would think. Here are Cornell's xG states so far this season (Cornell first, opponent second):

NoDak game 1: 2.7 vs 2.3
NoDak game 2: 2.3 vs 2.7
Yale: 3.6 vs 1.4
Brown: 3.2 vs 2.2
Dartmouth: 3.8 vs 1.8
Harvard: 2.8 vs 3.7
Quinnipiac: 2.1 vs 2.7
Princeton: 3.2 vs 2.6
Quinnipiac (MSG): 3.3 vs 2.6
Colgate (home): 3.2 vs 1.6
Colgate (road): 2.3 vs 1.9
UMass: 3.7 vs 2.2
ASU: 3.6 vs 2.3

One confounding variable is that Cornell has rarely played with the lead this season so has necessarily been more aggressive. With that said, if these stats are reliable, it certainly supports the notion that the biggest problem this season, by far, has been Shane. And I guess lack of finishing ability.

That's 10-3 by xG, including the last 6 in a row.  Huh.

Quote from: TrotskyThat's 10-3 by xG, including the last 6 in a row.  Huh.

Three of those were basically even, but yes. Of all the games this season, the Dartmouth game haunts me the most. Dartmouth did not look good, but we gave the game away. That's what started the slide. I said at that time that Dartmouth looked very unimpressive, and sure enough they've lost most of their games since.

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: adamw

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: adamw

Quote from: BearLover6. Last year we had 10 freshmen and low expectations. The weak first semester was entirely understandable. Our turnaround also made sense, because of the 10 freshmen coming into their own. Quite the opposite from this year's team: we have one freshman who receives regular playing time and return last year's entire roster minus Seger and a backup goalie.

Last year, you cried bloody murder when I said the team would be better than the year before despite the turnover. You were dancing on the proverbial grave after the slow start. I gave all the reasons why I had confidence in this, mainly having to do with Mike Schafer's ability to improve teams as the year goes on. Then ... this happened. Now, you're back to crabbing about "coaching" and blah blah - despite all evidence to the contrary. SMH.

Honestly, I think it's clear there's a coaching issue this year. The team is out of sync, the special teams are horrible. Compared to last year, it's basically same Cornell roster, with different Cornell coaches, and we've significantly regressed. Old Cornell coach goes to Princeton, they significantly improve. New Cornell coach comes from Clarkson, they significantly improve under their new coach.

I mean, when the entire team underperforms so badly and so consistently, whose fault is it? What's a better explanation?

I think it's very likely Syer was a big piece of Cornell's success the past decade, and he's gone now. The jury is still out on Casey. Early returns aren't good, but he hasn't been given a remotely fair shake yet. What I am much more confident in is that the coaching staff as a whole is struggling. I don't know how much of that is Schafer starting to take a step back, how much of it is Casey and the new assistant learning the ropes, how much of it is having two head coaches and not enough assistants. This does not mean that Schafer or Casey or anyone is a bad coach. I never said that, obviously. Not sure why blaming the coaching is controversial, anyway. I think many on this forum are starting to feel similarly that there may be a problem.

The logical leaps here are laughably off the charts. Work on your deductive reasoning skills.

Yawn. As usual, just direct insults and zero engagement with the substance. I asked, "what's a better explanation [than coaching issues] for the entire team underforming so badly?" and you couldn't even answer that!

Actually, I've directly answered you in a number of previous threads. What you see as not giving you a better explanation, is simply me repeating myself, and spending too much time partaking in this tiresome nonsense.

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: adamw

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: adamw

Quote from: BearLoverand CHN/the Sun will never ask a negative question of the coach or write a negative story about the team.

lol that you think this is true ... maybe you should listen to our podcast too. But it's just one of the laundry list of things you will harp ad nauseum that is very false. Any lack of "tough questions" and criticism of Cornell that you fail to see on CHN has to do with a) there's usually no reason to; b) I'm not going to write criticism just to satisfy non-sensical fan blathering ... I don't do that about ANY team in the country ... However, I also do it where it's needed - maybe pay more attention ... c) I have 64 teams to cover, so you're not going to get what you want most of the time.

You definitely want to listen to this week's podcast when it's out.

And yes, it's pathetic the Ithaca Journal no longer covers the team.  Unfortunately -- I know most people here live in a Cornell knowledge bubble -- but this is the case all over the country.  And it sucks.  However, the IJ wasn't asking any tough questions when they did, I assure you.  And probably 99% of places all over the country don't do that either.

I read many of the stories on your site and they're all positive. I get it—these are college kids who don't deserve criticism heaped on them, and you need to maintain good relationships with your sources—the same goes for the Sun. I just wish there were more investigative reporting. I'll listen to the podcast, thanks for the rec.

You definitely haven't followed me for 30 years (understandable) if you think this is true about me or the site I run. We are not a PR firm - and I also don't believe in hatchet jobs and blog-like off the cuff ranting. You haven't seen my social media or listened to the podcast if you think all I do is praise Cornell every minute.

As for "investigative reporting" -- heh, we have done more "investigative reporting" of ACTUAL issues than anyone in college hockey media, times 50. You have no idea what you're saying here, about me or the site.  Looking into whether 1 of 64 teams is having "coaching issues" with a 30-year head coach with a track record of wild success just because they have had an inconsistent, disappointing start, is not the definition of "investigative reporting." LOL. Please get over yourself.

Dude, what? I'm not demanding CHN cover anything. I'm merely lamenting that all these burning questions will never be answered. There are thousands of Cornell fans interested in why this season has been a colossal disappointment. It seems unlikely that CHN, the Sun, or anyone else will dig into this, so we will never know. I'm sorry that you read into my posts a sense of entitlement or whatever else you keep inferring.

You criticized us for writing nothing but fluff. Whether you want to label it a "demand" or "dumb complaint" - my reply stands.

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: arugula

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: arugula

Quote from: Dafatone

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: adamw

Quote from: BearLover6. Last year we had 10 freshmen and low expectations. The weak first semester was entirely understandable. Our turnaround also made sense, because of the 10 freshmen coming into their own. Quite the opposite from this year's team: we have one freshman who receives regular playing time and return last year's entire roster minus Seger and a backup goalie.

Last year, you cried bloody murder when I said the team would be better than the year before despite the turnover. You were dancing on the proverbial grave after the slow start. I gave all the reasons why I had confidence in this, mainly having to do with Mike Schafer's ability to improve teams as the year goes on. Then ... this happened. Now, you're back to crabbing about "coaching" and blah blah - despite all evidence to the contrary. SMH.

Honestly, I think it's clear there's a coaching issue this year. The team is out of sync, the special teams are horrible. Compared to last year, it's basically same Cornell roster, with different Cornell coaches, and we've significantly regressed. Old Cornell coach goes to Princeton, they significantly improve. New Cornell coach comes from Clarkson, they significantly improve under their new coach.

I mean, when the entire team underperforms so badly and so consistently, whose fault is it? What's a better explanation?

I think it's very likely Syer was a big piece of Cornell's success the past decade, and he's gone now. The jury is still out on Casey. Early returns aren't good, but he hasn't been given a remotely fair shake yet. What I am much more confident in is that the coaching staff as a whole is struggling. I don't know how much of that is Schafer starting to take a step back, how much of it is Casey and the new assistant learning the ropes, how much of it is having two head coaches and not enough assistants. This does not mean that Schafer or Casey or anyone is a bad coach. I never said that, obviously. Not sure why blaming the coaching is controversial, anyway. I think many on this forum are starting to feel similarly that there may be a problem.

See, watching the team, I see it pretty differently. We look fine if not great, flow of play is solid, we can skate with the best teams we've seen.

Shane giving up a few soft goals is the difference.

That and the PP being a disaster, I'll give you that. It's improved, at least.

Tend to think this is true.  In our best years, our margin for error was extremely small.  This year, we're falling more on the wrong side of that line than in more successful years, but the margin for error is still tight and could just as easily go the other way.  The expected goals against ASU suggested a Cornell 4-2 win.  So if Ian tightens up and we can finish a chance in the first period of a game for once, things will change quickly.  Seeing a player like Bancroft-size, speed, some skill, yet undrafted, suggests to me a classic Cornell player--everything but the finish.  If he could finish better, he'd have been drafted and/or would be at Michigan or Denver or some such. That's kind of our season in a nutshell

Where did you see that xG thing? That is insane, if true.

CHN

Thanks. As far as I can tell, the CHN version of xG does not take into account what type of shot it was (backhand, wrist shot, etc.) but only where on the ice it was taken. Still, way better than nothing I would think. Here are Cornell's xG states so far this season (Cornell first, opponent second):

NoDak game 1: 2.7 vs 2.3
NoDak game 2: 2.3 vs 2.7
Yale: 3.6 vs 1.4
Brown: 3.2 vs 2.2
Dartmouth: 3.8 vs 1.8
Harvard: 2.8 vs 3.7
Quinnipiac: 2.1 vs 2.7
Princeton: 3.2 vs 2.6
Quinnipiac (MSG): 3.3 vs 2.6
Colgate (home): 3.2 vs 1.6
Colgate (road): 2.3 vs 1.9
UMass: 3.7 vs 2.2
ASU: 3.6 vs 2.3

One confounding variable is that Cornell has rarely played with the lead this season so has necessarily been more aggressive. With that said, if these stats are reliable, it certainly supports the notion that the biggest problem this season, by far, has been Shane. And I guess lack of finishing ability.

Otoh when you're playing from behind your xG gets inflated because you're chasing the game and presumably shooting more. Analytics without context.  For example, in the midst of the Rangers historic collapse,the analytics have them "winning" a lot of the games.

Quote from: arugula

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: arugula

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: arugula

Quote from: Dafatone

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: adamw

Quote from: BearLover6. Last year we had 10 freshmen and low expectations. The weak first semester was entirely understandable. Our turnaround also made sense, because of the 10 freshmen coming into their own. Quite the opposite from this year's team: we have one freshman who receives regular playing time and return last year's entire roster minus Seger and a backup goalie.

Last year, you cried bloody murder when I said the team would be better than the year before despite the turnover. You were dancing on the proverbial grave after the slow start. I gave all the reasons why I had confidence in this, mainly having to do with Mike Schafer's ability to improve teams as the year goes on. Then ... this happened. Now, you're back to crabbing about "coaching" and blah blah - despite all evidence to the contrary. SMH.

Honestly, I think it's clear there's a coaching issue this year. The team is out of sync, the special teams are horrible. Compared to last year, it's basically same Cornell roster, with different Cornell coaches, and we've significantly regressed. Old Cornell coach goes to Princeton, they significantly improve. New Cornell coach comes from Clarkson, they significantly improve under their new coach.

I mean, when the entire team underperforms so badly and so consistently, whose fault is it? What's a better explanation?

I think it's very likely Syer was a big piece of Cornell's success the past decade, and he's gone now. The jury is still out on Casey. Early returns aren't good, but he hasn't been given a remotely fair shake yet. What I am much more confident in is that the coaching staff as a whole is struggling. I don't know how much of that is Schafer starting to take a step back, how much of it is Casey and the new assistant learning the ropes, how much of it is having two head coaches and not enough assistants. This does not mean that Schafer or Casey or anyone is a bad coach. I never said that, obviously. Not sure why blaming the coaching is controversial, anyway. I think many on this forum are starting to feel similarly that there may be a problem.

See, watching the team, I see it pretty differently. We look fine if not great, flow of play is solid, we can skate with the best teams we've seen.

Shane giving up a few soft goals is the difference.

That and the PP being a disaster, I'll give you that. It's improved, at least.

Tend to think this is true.  In our best years, our margin for error was extremely small.  This year, we're falling more on the wrong side of that line than in more successful years, but the margin for error is still tight and could just as easily go the other way.  The expected goals against ASU suggested a Cornell 4-2 win.  So if Ian tightens up and we can finish a chance in the first period of a game for once, things will change quickly.  Seeing a player like Bancroft-size, speed, some skill, yet undrafted, suggests to me a classic Cornell player--everything but the finish.  If he could finish better, he'd have been drafted and/or would be at Michigan or Denver or some such. That's kind of our season in a nutshell

Where did you see that xG thing? That is insane, if true.

CHN

Thanks. As far as I can tell, the CHN version of xG does not take into account what type of shot it was (backhand, wrist shot, etc.) but only where on the ice it was taken. Still, way better than nothing I would think. Here are Cornell's xG states so far this season (Cornell first, opponent second):

NoDak game 1: 2.7 vs 2.3
NoDak game 2: 2.3 vs 2.7
Yale: 3.6 vs 1.4
Brown: 3.2 vs 2.2
Dartmouth: 3.8 vs 1.8
Harvard: 2.8 vs 3.7
Quinnipiac: 2.1 vs 2.7
Princeton: 3.2 vs 2.6
Quinnipiac (MSG): 3.3 vs 2.6
Colgate (home): 3.2 vs 1.6
Colgate (road): 2.3 vs 1.9
UMass: 3.7 vs 2.2
ASU: 3.6 vs 2.3

One confounding variable is that Cornell has rarely played with the lead this season so has necessarily been more aggressive. With that said, if these stats are reliable, it certainly supports the notion that the biggest problem this season, by far, has been Shane. And I guess lack of finishing ability.

Otoh when you're playing from behind your xG gets inflated because you're chasing the game and presumably shooting more. Analytics without context.  For example, in the midst of the Rangers historic collapse,the analytics have them "winning" a lot of the games.

We're saying the same thing.

Quote from: BearLoverEverybody was thinking this team was capable of a Frozen Four run before the season began. From that perspective, even being on the bubble would be disappointing. Instead, we're almost locked out of an at-large midway through the season.

Not disagreeing with the overall characterizations of how we're performing, but we were #21 in the PWR at this point last season after tying ASU in Lake Placid (with the exact same 6-4-3 record we have right now, albeit not against the same competition), before we went on that historical and improbable 11-2-3 run to close the regular season. We're #27 right now with the same number of games left, and to my mind the distance between #27 and #19 is awfully tight compared to the gaps above #19. Not that I'm overlooking the impact that might have on our ability to climb above #19, but most of our remaining opponents are eminently beatable if Shane gets his act together and we get most guys healthy. The main external problem as I see it, at-large-wise, is the fact that 7 of the top 16 right now are Hockey East - that means the other conferences' tourney winners are likely to take more of the bottom 2-4 slots. Is it mathematically impossible or nearly impossible for Cornell to finish at or above #13 again? Maybe not. Plugging in a 16-0-0 run and ignoring all other results puts us in #7. Even adjusting with a loss to Q (at Q, natch) and (optimistically) a split with Clarkson lands us in #12 (again, absent all other game results; if I give our OOC opponents this season good records down the stretch as well, I can get us to finish as high as #8 with a 14-2 finish).

Do I believe a 14-2-0 run is likely with the team as we've observed them thus far this season? I do not. But I also don't agree with "almost locked out." Improbable, maybe. But wouldn't it be fun to watch?

Quote from: arugulaOtoh when you're playing from behind your xG gets inflated because you're chasing the game and presumably shooting more. Analytics without context.  For example, in the midst of the Rangers historic collapse,the analytics have them "winning" a lot of the games.

Obligatory fuck the Rangers, lmao. I think I said it before somewhere else, and Trotsky confirmed it, but the team basically lives and dies by Shane because we're not that good at capitalizing on chances even ES, much less PP. Paralleling to my Devils, we've outchanced a LOT in the past few games but are still on a 4-game slide because we can't finish. If you can put pucks in the net, you rely less on your goalie to be perfect. If you rely on a perfect tendy, you don't have to worry so much about sinking pucks. Problem is, neither is happening rn.

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: adamw

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: adamw

Quote from: BearLoverand CHN/the Sun will never ask a negative question of the coach or write a negative story about the team.

lol that you think this is true ... maybe you should listen to our podcast too. But it's just one of the laundry list of things you will harp ad nauseum that is very false. Any lack of "tough questions" and criticism of Cornell that you fail to see on CHN has to do with a) there's usually no reason to; b) I'm not going to write criticism just to satisfy non-sensical fan blathering ... I don't do that about ANY team in the country ... However, I also do it where it's needed - maybe pay more attention ... c) I have 64 teams to cover, so you're not going to get what you want most of the time.

You definitely want to listen to this week's podcast when it's out.

And yes, it's pathetic the Ithaca Journal no longer covers the team.  Unfortunately -- I know most people here live in a Cornell knowledge bubble -- but this is the case all over the country.  And it sucks.  However, the IJ wasn't asking any tough questions when they did, I assure you.  And probably 99% of places all over the country don't do that either.

I read many of the stories on your site and they're all positive. I get it—these are college kids who don't deserve criticism heaped on them, and you need to maintain good relationships with your sources—the same goes for the Sun. I just wish there were more investigative reporting. I'll listen to the podcast, thanks for the rec.

You definitely haven't followed me for 30 years (understandable) if you think this is true about me or the site I run. We are not a PR firm - and I also don't believe in hatchet jobs and blog-like off the cuff ranting. You haven't seen my social media or listened to the podcast if you think all I do is praise Cornell every minute.

As for "investigative reporting" -- heh, we have done more "investigative reporting" of ACTUAL issues than anyone in college hockey media, times 50. You have no idea what you're saying here, about me or the site.  Looking into whether 1 of 64 teams is having "coaching issues" with a 30-year head coach with a track record of wild success just because they have had an inconsistent, disappointing start, is not the definition of "investigative reporting." LOL. Please get over yourself.

Dude, what? I'm not demanding CHN cover anything. I'm merely lamenting that all these burning questions will never be answered. There are thousands of Cornell fans interested in why this season has been a colossal disappointment. It seems unlikely that CHN, the Sun, or anyone else will dig into this, so we will never know. I'm sorry that you read into my posts a sense of entitlement or whatever else you keep inferring.

"Burning questions?"  "Investigative reporting?"  Huh?  These are kids playing a game.  For our entertainment. Sometimes your team exceeds expectations, sometimes it doesn't. It's not the Boston archdiocese child abuse scandal.  Or government corruption in Belarus.  Or bankers fixing LIBOR rates.  Ranting that someone has to find out just what it is that's behind this "colossal disappointment" by "dig[ging] into it" to reveal the culprit "so we will know" is just over the top.

Quote from: adamw

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: adamw

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: adamw

Quote from: BearLover6. Last year we had 10 freshmen and low expectations. The weak first semester was entirely understandable. Our turnaround also made sense, because of the 10 freshmen coming into their own. Quite the opposite from this year's team: we have one freshman who receives regular playing time and return last year's entire roster minus Seger and a backup goalie.

Last year, you cried bloody murder when I said the team would be better than the year before despite the turnover. You were dancing on the proverbial grave after the slow start. I gave all the reasons why I had confidence in this, mainly having to do with Mike Schafer's ability to improve teams as the year goes on. Then ... this happened. Now, you're back to crabbing about "coaching" and blah blah - despite all evidence to the contrary. SMH.

Honestly, I think it's clear there's a coaching issue this year. The team is out of sync, the special teams are horrible. Compared to last year, it's basically same Cornell roster, with different Cornell coaches, and we've significantly regressed. Old Cornell coach goes to Princeton, they significantly improve. New Cornell coach comes from Clarkson, they significantly improve under their new coach.

I mean, when the entire team underperforms so badly and so consistently, whose fault is it? What's a better explanation?

I think it's very likely Syer was a big piece of Cornell's success the past decade, and he's gone now. The jury is still out on Casey. Early returns aren't good, but he hasn't been given a remotely fair shake yet. What I am much more confident in is that the coaching staff as a whole is struggling. I don't know how much of that is Schafer starting to take a step back, how much of it is Casey and the new assistant learning the ropes, how much of it is having two head coaches and not enough assistants. This does not mean that Schafer or Casey or anyone is a bad coach. I never said that, obviously. Not sure why blaming the coaching is controversial, anyway. I think many on this forum are starting to feel similarly that there may be a problem.

The logical leaps here are laughably off the charts. Work on your deductive reasoning skills.

Yawn. As usual, just direct insults and zero engagement with the substance. I asked, "what's a better explanation [than coaching issues] for the entire team underforming so badly?" and you couldn't even answer that!

Actually, I've directly answered you in a number of previous threads. What you see as not giving you a better explanation, is simply me repeating myself, and spending too much time partaking in this tiresome nonsense.

On this forum at least, I don't think you've given any reason why Cornell has been so disappointing this year. You have merely argued that coaching isn't the reason. Anyway, I'm dropping this argument. I'll be happy to be proven wrong when somebody, somewhere, writes a piece digging into why Cornell has been a huge disappointment this season and/or analyzing the unique coaching situation.

Quote from: Al DeFlorio

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: adamw

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: adamw

Quote from: BearLoverand CHN/the Sun will never ask a negative question of the coach or write a negative story about the team.

lol that you think this is true ... maybe you should listen to our podcast too. But it's just one of the laundry list of things you will harp ad nauseum that is very false. Any lack of "tough questions" and criticism of Cornell that you fail to see on CHN has to do with a) there's usually no reason to; b) I'm not going to write criticism just to satisfy non-sensical fan blathering ... I don't do that about ANY team in the country ... However, I also do it where it's needed - maybe pay more attention ... c) I have 64 teams to cover, so you're not going to get what you want most of the time.

You definitely want to listen to this week's podcast when it's out.

And yes, it's pathetic the Ithaca Journal no longer covers the team.  Unfortunately -- I know most people here live in a Cornell knowledge bubble -- but this is the case all over the country.  And it sucks.  However, the IJ wasn't asking any tough questions when they did, I assure you.  And probably 99% of places all over the country don't do that either.

I read many of the stories on your site and they're all positive. I get it—these are college kids who don't deserve criticism heaped on them, and you need to maintain good relationships with your sources—the same goes for the Sun. I just wish there were more investigative reporting. I'll listen to the podcast, thanks for the rec.

You definitely haven't followed me for 30 years (understandable) if you think this is true about me or the site I run. We are not a PR firm - and I also don't believe in hatchet jobs and blog-like off the cuff ranting. You haven't seen my social media or listened to the podcast if you think all I do is praise Cornell every minute.

As for "investigative reporting" -- heh, we have done more "investigative reporting" of ACTUAL issues than anyone in college hockey media, times 50. You have no idea what you're saying here, about me or the site.  Looking into whether 1 of 64 teams is having "coaching issues" with a 30-year head coach with a track record of wild success just because they have had an inconsistent, disappointing start, is not the definition of "investigative reporting." LOL. Please get over yourself.

Dude, what? I'm not demanding CHN cover anything. I'm merely lamenting that all these burning questions will never be answered. There are thousands of Cornell fans interested in why this season has been a colossal disappointment. It seems unlikely that CHN, the Sun, or anyone else will dig into this, so we will never know. I'm sorry that you read into my posts a sense of entitlement or whatever else you keep inferring.

"Burning questions?"  "Investigative reporting?"  Huh?  These are kids playing a game.  For our entertainment. Sometimes your team exceeds expectations, sometimes it doesn't. It's not the Boston archdiocese child abuse scandal.  Or government corruption in Belarus.  Or bankers fixing LIBOR rates.  Ranting that someone has to find out just what it is that's behind this "colossal disappointment" by "dig[ging] into it" to reveal the culprit "so we will know" is just over the top.

Nope, nice try, but I'm still not ranting that anybody "has to" find out anything. I'm lamenting, from my and other fans' selfish perspective, that nobody is going to, and so the most disappointing season in the history[?] of Cornell hockey will remain shrouded in mystery. I'm not making any normative claim about how things "should" be.

people have gotten entirely deranged by bearlover. it's starting to be more about you than him. he has a very specific point of view with two significant prongs.

1) the 24-25 team is a big disapointment and, barring a wild run on the level of last year, we will not get an at large. (NB: IIRC we weren't going to get an at-large LAST year if we biffed the ECAC final, even after the stellar spring run, which only makes his point more stark).

2) the results from ithaca, princeton and potsdam indicate that coaching is one of the driving factors in this year's disappointment. i don't know if i agree - the sample size is small and normal variance seems to be a problem as much as anything - but it isn't a wild-eyed thought imo.

here are my thoughts.

- we were probably too optimistic coming in because of the spring semester run, including the win over maine. the season was all over the place with highs and lows and Seger really was not only a great player in his own right but an incredible glue guy.

- Shane has always paired spectacular saves with head-scratchers and It's The System is part joke and part truism. he doesn't face a ton of shots and he doesn't face a lot of good shots, so you'd expect a decently high save percentage. i feel like he has always faced too many GREAT shots where he's hung out to dry, and it has led to some divergence between his individual stats and team results. like, he'll save .920 by stopping a ton of crap and then giving up a bad rebound and two that you have to hang on the D. this year despite not facing a lot of shots, he's getting burned more than he should. it's a crisis especially when...

- the team can't finish for shit. every time suda winds up you can tell he's going to stress-test the glass and everyone else seems to be trying to hit a the logo on the goalie's jersey. we seem to be nearly allergic to positioning people to screen and muck for rebounds and all the other things we love to complain about.

- i don't know how much of this is coaching and how much is the players and how much is terrible puck luck. i'm inclined to think that the parts that are coaching have served us well in the past and this year's bad results are an unfortunate anomaly. but i don't *know* that, and while i can find it a little tedious that bearlover bangs the drum so often, the main reason he does is because when he does everyone SCREAMS at him that he can't possibly be right or that he's too negative or that he actually enjoys losing. is he wrong? i don't know! is he annoying? no more than most of you! (or me, probably, even though i'm charming and brilliant). stop nesting threads so much!

at least we seem to have mostly stopped taking 20 seconds to get the puck out from behind the net to start the offense on the power play. i'm going to keep watching hockey. i don't enjoy the games less because after a loss some people come to type "this sucks" and it's definitely more frustrating for me to read "stop being so mean!" as if i care whether the guys just have fun out there.

Don't mistake mockery for anger. We're not shouting at the candy asses.  We're laughing at them.

It's SSS. Just let the season play out.

Wow
Reading this I feel like I'm in a thread full of Karen's LMOA
We may never know what the issue is, and rightfully so-these things often stay within the confines of the locker room
Let's be optimistic that we are on the verge of a comeback and keep cheering for the guys, many who are carrying hefty school workloads
They are attending Cornell for more than just hockey
End of rant

Quote from: ugartepeople have gotten entirely deranged by bearlover. it's starting to be more about you than him. he has a very specific point of view with two significant prongs.

1) the 24-25 team is a big disapointment and, barring a wild run on the level of last year, we will not get an at large. (NB: IIRC we weren't going to get an at-large LAST year if we biffed the ECAC final, even after the stellar spring run, which only makes his point more stark).

2) the results from ithaca, princeton and potsdam indicate that coaching is one of the driving factors in this year's disappointment. i don't know if i agree - the sample size is small and normal variance seems to be a problem as much as anything - but it isn't a wild-eyed thought imo.

here are my thoughts.

- we were probably too optimistic coming in because of the spring semester run, including the win over maine. the season was all over the place with highs and lows and Seger really was not only a great player in his own right but an incredible glue guy.

- Shane has always paired spectacular saves with head-scratchers and It's The System is part joke and part truism. he doesn't face a ton of shots and he doesn't face a lot of good shots, so you'd expect a decently high save percentage. i feel like he has always faced too many GREAT shots where he's hung out to dry, and it has led to some divergence between his individual stats and team results. like, he'll save .920 by stopping a ton of crap and then giving up a bad rebound and two that you have to hang on the D. this year despite not facing a lot of shots, he's getting burned more than he should. it's a crisis especially when...

- the team can't finish for shit. every time suda winds up you can tell he's going to stress-test the glass and everyone else seems to be trying to hit a the logo on the goalie's jersey. we seem to be nearly allergic to positioning people to screen and muck for rebounds and all the other things we love to complain about.

- i don't know how much of this is coaching and how much is the players and how much is terrible puck luck. i'm inclined to think that the parts that are coaching have served us well in the past and this year's bad results are an unfortunate anomaly. but i don't *know* that, and while i can find it a little tedious that bearlover bangs the drum so often, the main reason he does is because when he does everyone SCREAMS at him that he can't possibly be right or that he's too negative or that he actually enjoys losing. is he wrong? i don't know! is he annoying? no more than most of you! (or me, probably, even though i'm charming and brilliant). stop nesting threads so much!

at least we seem to have mostly stopped taking 20 seconds to get the puck out from behind the net to start the offense on the power play. i'm going to keep watching hockey. i don't enjoy the games less because after a loss some people come to type "this sucks" and it's definitely more frustrating for me to read "stop being so mean!" as if i care whether the guys just have fun out there.

For me it's the math. I think the "we need to all but run the table to get an at-large" worries came about a month earlier than made sense. Now, we're probably fairly close to that, although I still think we have a better shot than people realize (last year the RPI bar to get in was unusually high, though this year might shake out similarly).

Of course, "no need to worry yet" looks a little foolish when the need to worry starts to set in.

Quote from: ugarte2) the results from ithaca, princeton and potsdam indicate that coaching is one of the driving factors in this year's disappointment. i don't know if i agree - the sample size is small and normal variance seems to be a problem as much as anything - but it isn't a wild-eyed thought imo.

yeah here's where we differ ... this is a 100% preposterous thought, really.

Quote from: adamw

Quote from: ugarte2) the results from ithaca, princeton and potsdam indicate that coaching is one of the driving factors in this year's disappointment. i don't know if i agree - the sample size is small and normal variance seems to be a problem as much as anything - but it isn't a wild-eyed thought imo.

yeah here's where we differ ... this is a 100% preposterous thought, really.

It's so preposterous that you continue to offer no other explanation, at all. Hmm...

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: adamw

Quote from: ugarte2) the results from ithaca, princeton and potsdam indicate that coaching is one of the driving factors in this year's disappointment. i don't know if i agree - the sample size is small and normal variance seems to be a problem as much as anything - but it isn't a wild-eyed thought imo.

yeah here's where we differ ... this is a 100% preposterous thought, really.

It's so preposterous that you continue to offer no other explanation, at all. Hmm...

Because there may be no pat explanation.  And it may have nothing at all to do with Jones or Syer, something you appear to be obsessed with.  We're all disappointed.  But not obsessed with identifying on whom to place blame.

all we should take from XG is that going on a run is just as likely as not given how the games are being played.

We are in the spots to win the games just can't get it done

Like being a Mets fan I guess

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: adamw

Quote from: ugarte2) the results from ithaca, princeton and potsdam indicate that coaching is one of the driving factors in this year's disappointment. i don't know if i agree - the sample size is small and normal variance seems to be a problem as much as anything - but it isn't a wild-eyed thought imo.

yeah here's where we differ ... this is a 100% preposterous thought, really.

It's so preposterous that you continue to offer no other explanation, at all. Hmm...

Keep believing that, dingbat.

i appreciate and share the desire to understand everything but there is nothing to be investigated.

chance plays a large role in hockey which creates large variability in winning, finishing, or saving, especially in small sample sets.  it's human tendency to greatly underestimate the effect of randomness when evaluating strings of success or failure.

injuries play a large role in sports performance which is why disclosure is so important where it's required.  as important as who suits up or not is who is playing with injuries and how bad the injuries are.  this is something that we will likely never know and we certainly don't want the world to know.

while there can be great variability in results, it's silly to think that there can be great variability in one's coaching ability.  as is the thought that one can be a good coach but is unable to identify strong lieutenants and successors.  good leaders can make bad hiring decisions from time to time but that is rarely the case when there is past experience working together.  

one of the big appeals of cornell hockey to fans, players, and coaches is the positive energy and atmosphere of lynah.  i hope that recruits aren't here on elynah, thinking that the mix of commentary is reflective of the actual support that the entire community provides.

Quote from: TrotskyDon't mistake mockery for anger. We're not shouting at the candy asses. We're laughing at them.

sigh

Hardly the 'most disappointing season ever" Compared to 2020, or 1969 even. Sometimes you lose games. It's ok. We're just a mediocre team in a mediocre league. Maybe we get hot an do something amazing. Maybe it's next year. Or in 3 years when the team is loaded up with CHL players. Enjoy the feeling of being a Cornell Hockey Fan- heartbreak and joy are a part of the experience.

I think it is too early to call us a mediocre team.  13 games in to what will be > 30 games.

But why not just watch?  I understand the allure of measurement, of course, it's what TBRW is all about.  But predicating your enjoyment on that measurement is just so Missing The Point.  It's the journey, people. Did you study to get grades or learn?

Quote from: TrotskyI think it is too early to call us a mediocre team.  13 games in to what will be > 30 games.

But why not just watch?  I understand the allure of measurement, of course, it's what TBRW is all about.  But predicating your enjoyment on that measurement is just so Missing The Point.  It's the journey, people. Did you study to get grades or learn?

That last question. Oh boy...

Stick tap for Bernie.  There is great passion for Cornell hockey.  Let's Go Red!

Quote from: TrotskyI think it is too early to call us a mediocre team.  13 games in to what will be > 30 games.

But why not just watch?  I understand the allure of measurement, of course, it's what TBRW is all about.  But predicating your enjoyment on that measurement is just so Missing The Point.  It's the journey, people. Did you study to get grades or learn?

i definitely don't think it's too early but i don't mind being pleasantly surprised!

Quote from: berniei appreciate and share the desire to understand everything but there is nothing to be investigated.

chance plays a large role in hockey which creates large variability in winning, finishing, or saving, especially in small sample sets.  it's human tendency to greatly underestimate the effect of randomness when evaluating strings of success or failure.

injuries play a large role in sports performance which is why disclosure is so important where it's required.  as important as who suits up or not is who is playing with injuries and how bad the injuries are.  this is something that we will likely never know and we certainly don't want the world to know.

while there can be great variability in results, it's silly to think that there can be great variability in one's coaching ability.  as is the thought that one can be a good coach but is unable to identify strong lieutenants and successors.  good leaders can make bad hiring decisions from time to time but that is rarely the case when there is past experience working together.  

one of the big appeals of cornell hockey to fans, players, and coaches is the positive energy and atmosphere of lynah.  i hope that recruits aren't here on elynah, thinking that the mix of commentary is reflective of the actual support that the entire community provides.

I'm well aware of the reality of small samples, particularly in the context of hockey events. But I think we have large enough samples now to judge things like the PP, the PK, Shane, possession. I don't just mean the literal numbers, which are still small enough samples to be quite noisy. I mean from watching the team play. We've all borne witness of how bad the PP has looked this year. I also reiterate how widespread the regression has been: it's every line, and almost every player on the team. So, yeah, it's far from just injuries. As I mentioned in the other thread, there are many unique aspects of this year's coaching personnel and structure that could well be having an effect on the team. And nobody is infallible, even one of the greatest college hockey coaches of all time.

As to your last point, I'd take a look at any internet sports forum. Relatively speaking, ELynah is the most reasonable and positive of any that I've come across. This is just a terrible season. It's obviously not often this negative on here.

The last thing I will say is that the underlying metrics and Schafer's view of the team (per Adam's article) suggest it's not far off from turning the corner, if (and only if) Shane himself can turn it around. It's a shame that the damage is so great that we're going to have to win the ECAC again, but I buy the argument that the team will be better in the second half of the season than the first.

Quote from: TrotskyI think it is too early to call us a mediocre team.  13 games in to what will be > 30 games.

But why not just watch?  I understand the allure of measurement, of course, it's what TBRW is all about.  But predicating your enjoyment on that measurement is just so Missing The Point.  It's the journey, people. Did you study to get grades or learn?

trick question, I avoid studying <3

but yeah, I think we all know the "reasons we suck" at this point. something something, ::deadhorse:: . just enjoy the games, enjoy hockey, if we make it we make it, if we don't we don't. a lot of y'all are obsessed with doing well this year "for schaefer's legacy" but remove that lens and just let it be.

Quote from: CASStick tap for Bernie.  There is great passion for Cornell hockey.  Let's Go Red!

tap tap, LGR!

Quote from: bernieone of the big appeals of cornell hockey to fans, players, and coaches is the positive energy and atmosphere of lynah.  i hope that recruits aren't here on elynah, thinking that the mix of commentary is reflective of the actual support that the entire community provides.

This could be a concern.  I very much doubt players and prospects know or care the slightest about sites like this, but we are certainly not helping anybody by cosplaying Stephen A. Smith.

This is not FBI overreach and we are not Edward R. Murrow.  I'll admit I have never understood the mindset of "I paid for my ticket I have a right to boo!" and that it is at least theoretically conceivable people like that are not the spoiled brats they appear to be, but even if it isn't prima facie infantile, it does leave a bad taste in the universe. In my opinion.

Clownlover-

When you compare results this year vs last for Cornell, Clarkson and Princeton, you're conclusions are completely off-base. You can't compare each of the three schools relative results because they aren't at all correlated.

Princeton improved a lot so far this year.  I don't study their program to know how much personnel  or injuries are impacting things.  The easiest conclusion is that to her most likely result would be to improve, given they've been bad for a long time.  But even if it was solely do to coaching, the only conclusion would be that syer was better than his predecessor. It's not like we can give Mike, casey and Ben each a full year replay of the exact same season with the Princeton lineup to run an absolute comparison.

When you look at Clarkson, again without staring at the lineup, there are two significant explanations. The same argument may hold as at Princeton: while we don't know yet in the long term how it translates to the college game, Clarkson's new HC quite likely a big reason for improvement. I can't say if he's a better or worse coach than Casey, but his pedigree is by far more high powered. That pedigree can be a big motivator and source of jump for the players in the short term, whether or not he's a better coach.  Assessing him as an overall coach is going  ability itself has got to be evaluated in the longer term especially with the importance of recruiting which you can't fairly judge in year one.

Now for Ben and Casey and Mike's impact and capability as pure hockey coaches, it's again idiotic to try and draw comparisons the way you are.   Your so called burning questions are hardly burning questions and for some of them you seem unaware that there's information out there already.

Someone linked to Jane McNally's recent sun article, and she asked coach about how things were going with Casey.  You clearly didn't read that article.  I know that because coach talks about how he basically dumped all the recruiting and administrative stuff on Casey and he's having a lot more fun this year because he can put almost all his time and energy into actually coaching for the first time in a very very long time.

So by the Clownlover coaching assessment test (ccat) the answer would be that syer is a better coach than Mike.   Why?

Changes in coaching responsibilities (on ice, do stuff, not recruiting and admin);

Syer departs and his responsibilities need to be picked up by someone.  I've got no idea what the full breadth of his responsibilities were. But it's a silly assumption to assume that Casey has just been plugged in to covering exactly what Syer did. Apart from different strengths and weaknesses between those two guys, Casey wouldn't have the bandwidth because, per the sun article, he's already taken over a number of mike's off-ice responsibilities. Mike says he's only having to coach now, so Mike may well be doing some of the coaching that syer has handled.

On top of that, there is something to be said for continuity. I'd think a bump in the road is more likely than not this year, regardless of who came in once after syer left, solely from breaking up a long running well oiled machine.  Change is seldom seamless.  Syer already knew the players. Casey has to get to know them and what each guy needs etc.


And the last point has to do with expectations.   When I started the thread pointing out how this year's team was last years team, you missed the main thrust of my point.  The point was that last year we substantially surpassed expectations and probably were just plain lucky and ran well above reasonable expectations in the second half In that we won more than any expected wins star would have measured and if you ran that second half back ten times I don't think we get that many wins the other 9 times.

Then coming into this season, people set expectations, unrealistically, because of the recency bias of that crazy second half run.  There's no margin of error there to be able meet or exceed that inflated expectation, especially if we actually over achieved somewhat last year.

It's fair to say that we are underperforming against a reasonable expectation, sure.  But you are in a binary view.

Lastly, re caatagna and others, we know nothing about the whys of their performance.   Caatagna is probably playing hurt-in more than one game he went down the tunnel for a while iirc during a game, wasn't it his shoulder one time?

I.wouldnt be surprised if a LOT of guys are knocked up far more than we know.

I ain't reading all that

Quote from: BearLoverI ain't reading all that

And when many of us see your repetitive posts....

By the way BL, what's the question of the day hour nano-secind?

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: bernieone of the big appeals of cornell hockey to fans, players, and coaches is the positive energy and atmosphere of lynah.  i hope that recruits aren't here on elynah, thinking that the mix of commentary is reflective of the actual support that the entire community provides.

This could be a concern.  I very much doubt players and prospects know or care the slightest about sites like this, but we are certainly not helping anybody by cosplaying Stephen A. Smith.

You think this place is more hostile than college sports forums in general?

Quote from: abmarksI.wouldnt be surprised if a LOT of guys are knocked up far more than we know.

So we may have several pregnant players. That would explain the underperformance.

Quote from: adamwYou definitely want to listen to this week's podcast when it's out

Kind of off topic for this thread but I had a question about the podcast. Toward the end Adam inferred that because hockey east is so high in the pairwise and pretty much only has league play to go, they will essentially beat each other up in the pairwise. But, since the conference has so many teams in the top 20 and non con play is basically done, shouldn't they only help each other? Every league game that they play from now on is essentially just the hockey east giving themselves quality win bonuses due to their high pairwise standing which only helps the league get even better in the pairwise, not worse. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but the league should only get better in the pairwise, not worse as conference play happens through the rest of the year, right?

Quote from: chimpfood

Quote from: adamwYou definitely want to listen to this week's podcast when it's out

Kind of off topic for this thread but I had a question about the podcast. Toward the end Adam inferred that because hockey east is so high in the pairwise and pretty much only has league play to go, they will essentially beat each other up in the pairwise. But, since the conference has so many teams in the top 20 and non con play is basically done, shouldn't they only help each other? Every league game that they play from now on is essentially just the hockey east giving themselves quality win bonuses due to their high pairwise standing which only helps the league get even better in the pairwise, not worse. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but the league should only get better in the pairwise, not worse as conference play happens through the rest of the year, right?

Someone has to lose every game. OOC peak record can be 1.000. League games peak record is .500.

Quote from: adamw

Quote from: chimpfood

Quote from: adamwYou definitely want to listen to this week's podcast when it's out

Kind of off topic for this thread but I had a question about the podcast. Toward the end Adam inferred that because hockey east is so high in the pairwise and pretty much only has league play to go, they will essentially beat each other up in the pairwise. But, since the conference has so many teams in the top 20 and non con play is basically done, shouldn't they only help each other? Every league game that they play from now on is essentially just the hockey east giving themselves quality win bonuses due to their high pairwise standing which only helps the league get even better in the pairwise, not worse. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but the league should only get better in the pairwise, not worse as conference play happens through the rest of the year, right?

Someone has to lose every game. OOC peak record can be 1.000. League games peak record is .500.

Right but we're talking pairwise not record. A conference can only move up or down in the pairwise based on non conference play, no? Maybe I'm missing something but I don't see how conference play will hurt these teams when they are all very high in the pairwise, and therefore all guaranteed a very good strength of schedule the rest of the way.

Quote from: chimpfood

Quote from: adamw

Quote from: chimpfood

Quote from: adamwYou definitely want to listen to this week's podcast when it's out

Kind of off topic for this thread but I had a question about the podcast. Toward the end Adam inferred that because hockey east is so high in the pairwise and pretty much only has league play to go, they will essentially beat each other up in the pairwise. But, since the conference has so many teams in the top 20 and non con play is basically done, shouldn't they only help each other? Every league game that they play from now on is essentially just the hockey east giving themselves quality win bonuses due to their high pairwise standing which only helps the league get even better in the pairwise, not worse. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but the league should only get better in the pairwise, not worse as conference play happens through the rest of the year, right?

Someone has to lose every game. OOC peak record can be 1.000. League games peak record is .500.

Right but we're talking pairwise not record. A conference can only move up or down in the pairwise based on non conference play, no? Maybe I'm missing something but I don't see how conference play will hurt these teams when they are all very high in the pairwise, and therefore all guaranteed a very good strength of schedule the rest of the way.

Because a loss is still a loss. A loss vs. a good opponent is still worse than a win vs. a weak opponent, in most cases. Especially since if you win vs. a weak opponent and your RPI goes down, that game is thrown out.

0         + (.6 x .75) = .45   loss vs. strong opp.
(1 x .25) + (.4 x .75) = .55   win vs. weak opp.

Quote from: chimpfoodA conference can only move up or down in the pairwise based on non conference play, no?

Correct.  Conference games cancel for conference strength.

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: chimpfoodA conference can only move up or down in the pairwise based on non conference play, no?

Correct.  Conference games cancel for conference strength.

right - but 25% of your RPI still your own Win% ... and OppWin% and OppOppWin% don't have as much variance as a team's own Win%

We talk about this all the time and I still can't understand how much playing less games plays into our PWR

Would 5-6 more games against just decent mid level teams help us or not just by playing them.

Kinda like the SEC FB pwr gets inflated because they beat up on the bad teams and then play all good not great teams vs a team that plays a few good teams and then a bunch of bad teams.

go 4-2 vs bad and 4-4 vs good vs a team that goes 8-4 vs bad and 1-1 vs good.   Both teams could be the same quality but one played a harder schedule.

kinda like what would happen with the PWR if you could make up 4-6 games and add them vs teams to see how the PWR would change.

Quote from: upprdeckWe talk about this all the time and I still can't understand how much playing less games plays into our PWR

Would 5-6 more games against just decent mid level teams help us or not just by playing them.

Kinda like the SEC FB pwr gets inflated because they beat up on the bad teams and then play all good not great teams vs a team that plays a few good teams and then a bunch of bad teams.

go 4-2 vs bad and 4-4 vs good vs a team that goes 8-4 vs bad and 1-1 vs good.   Both teams could be the same quality but one played a harder schedule.

kinda like what would happen with the PWR if you could make up 4-6 games and add them vs teams to see how the PWR would change.

it depends on how many times we cycle the puck until it gets tipped to neutral ice

Quote from: ugarte

Quote from: upprdeckWe talk about this all the time and I still can't understand how much playing less games plays into our PWR

Would 5-6 more games against just decent mid level teams help us or not just by playing them.

Kinda like the SEC FB pwr gets inflated because they beat up on the bad teams and then play all good not great teams vs a team that plays a few good teams and then a bunch of bad teams.

go 4-2 vs bad and 4-4 vs good vs a team that goes 8-4 vs bad and 1-1 vs good.   Both teams could be the same quality but one played a harder schedule.

kinda like what would happen with the PWR if you could make up 4-6 games and add them vs teams to see how the PWR would change.

it depends on how many times we cycle the puck until it gets tipped to neutral ice

Don't give away our power play secrets!

Cornell's possession metrics are actually pretty good: they're 7th in the country in Corsi (% of shot attempts in a game) and 6th in Fenwick (% of unblocked shot attempts in a game). Though, these stats are probably quite biased because Cornell has been playing from behind almost every game this season. In 14 games, Cornell has only played two games where they never trailed, and only one game they won comfortably. Cornell has given up the first goal in five straight games and 10/14 games total. So that's going to inflate their SOG.

With all of that said, the blame for this season falls more than anything on goaltending and the PP. It's really that simple. Goaltending and PP have been awful, and the team would be in the top 15 in the country if they were average in those areas. It's hard to buy the injury excuse when it hasn't affected goaltending (Shane has apparently been healthy all year) or the PP (the first PP unit has seen no injuries, the second PP a few but only Penney out long term).  

Pretty much everybody is playing worse than last year, but I'm still pretty dumbfounded by the regression/lack of progression from Castagna, Robertson, DeSantis, and Donaldson. They seemed capable of so much more. Lastly, Cornell has gotten almost nothing from its freshmen. Only Major sees regular playing time and he seems too small for NCAA hockey currently. He was a great scorer in the USHL, but he seems to be getting pushed around. I hope all these players are able to improve, particularly next season with a clean slate.

Would you mind sharing the link to the metrics that you used? Are they on CHN? I wasn't able to find them there.

Agreed on major. Not only is he small but he plays really timid too. Small guys can definitely work in college (see oleary, Kraft just on this years team) but if your scared to play physical you're never gonna get much done. I'm sure he and the coaches notice and are working on it but I haven't been able to see progress as I can't watch any of these away series.

Quote from: chimpfoodWould you mind sharing the link to the metrics that you used? Are they on CHN? I wasn't able to find them there.

https://www.collegehockeynews.com/stats/#adv

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: chimpfoodWould you mind sharing the link to the metrics that you used? Are they on CHN? I wasn't able to find them there.

https://www.collegehockeynews.com/stats/#adv

thanks, not sure how I missed it

why does playing from behind increase shots on goal?

Quote from: upprdeckwhy does playing from behind increase shots on goal?

Typically you are pressing to generate offense and not sitting back protecting a lead.

Quote from: BearLover(Shane has apparently been healthy all year)...

You have no idea if he's hurt.  Google Adler FFS if you're too young to remember.

Here's a question for Jason to ask Mike.

"Coach, which players have suffered groin pulls, torn muscles and dislocations but have been hiding them from our opponents.  There's some guy on eLynah who demands answers."

Quote from: marty

Quote from: BearLover(Shane has apparently been healthy all year)...

You have no idea if he's hurt.  Google Adler FFS if you're too young to remember.

Here's a question for Jason to ask Mike.

"Coach, which players have suffered groin pulls, torn muscles and dislocations but have been hiding them from our opponents.  There's some guy on eLynah who demands answers."

first of all, he said apparently. second of all, he's played every game so what point do you think you're making? if he's hurt enough for it to impact his performance but not his role we're pretty screwed.

Quote from: marty

Quote from: BearLover(Shane has apparently been healthy all year)...

You have no idea if he's hurt.  Google Adler FFS if you're too young to remember.

Here's a question for Jason to ask Mike.

"Coach, which players have suffered groin pulls, torn muscles and dislocations but have been hiding them from our opponents.  There's some guy on eLynah who demands answers."

No I don't know for certain, but seems highly unlikely he's injured given he has played every game, unlike the past two years, when Keoppel had gotten a start by now.

So when is the original poster going to admit they were wrong?

Quote from: Big DingusSo when is the original poster going to admit they were wrong?

Call no man happy until he is dead, but only lucky.  -- Solon

Quote from: abmarksBecause numbers talk and clownlover shouldn't.

Clownlover has been all over the place; beside himself that the team is blowing their opportunity in what he declared to be a year where we're supposed to legitimately contend for the national title.

Let's get a little perspective here and look at what we did last year. Did we make a deep run?   Yes.   But arguably we overachieved last year after going on a quite unlikely tear.


11 games in we were 6W-3L-1T-1OTL.

In 2023-2024, The day after our 11th game, our pwr rank was 25th with 40 comparison wins and an rpi of .5239

Including all playoff games, we improbably went 16W-3L-5T the rest of the way.

Now let's compare to this season.

After our 11th game on 12/7, out record stood at
4W-3L-3T-1OTW.

In 2024-2025 The day after our 11th game, our pwr rank was 25th with 39 comparison wins and an rpi of .5231

I don't know what happened last year to get the team on track after the holiday break, but something tells me it was part coaching and quite a bit of run good to over achieve.  Basing expectations for this year on where we finished last year and not looking at how we got there is  a mistake.   So far, this year's team and last year's team are effectively the same.

I vote this worst post of 2024

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: Big DingusSo when is the original poster going to admit they were wrong?

Call no man happy until he is dead, but only lucky.  -- Solon

Look now, pal.

This ain't the same team, in fact not even close.


We now also risk losing a ton of players tot he transfer portal

Quote from: Big DingusWe now also risk losing a ton of players tot he transfer portal

for all the things that i think are fair to say ... i doubt this very much. over the years the one thing the team has always been is cohesive and we've seen very few transfers out. i don't see that changing.

That post made no sense. I figured it was botspeak

I would rather live in Ithaca and get a Cornell BS or BA than live in Hamden and get a whatever...

Quote from: ugarte

Quote from: Big DingusWe now also risk losing a ton of players tot he transfer portal

for all the things that i think are fair to say ... i doubt this very much. over the years the one thing the team has always been is cohesive and we've seen very few transfers out. i don't see that changing.

We have usually seen the team win though... this year is the worst year in 10 years.

We are at risk

I hereby solemnly swear to stop yanking the Doomers' chains.  I've made my opinion of them clear. It hasn't changed, but it is Streisand Effect to engage with them.  I will concentrate on the good things, keep things in perspective, and try to lead by example.

Quote from: chimpfoodWould you mind sharing the link to the metrics that you used? Are they on CHN? I wasn't able to find them there.

Agreed on major. Not only is he small but he plays really timid too. Small guys can definitely work in college (see oleary, Kraft just on this years team) but if your scared to play physical you're never gonna get much done. I'm sure he and the coaches notice and are working on it but I haven't been able to see progress as I can't watch any of these away series.

Totally agree here.
I got grief for stating that Kraft was due for his goal last night from a few on campus. Yeah, many of them are due, no doubt about it.  Kraft is a battler and works his tail off, just like O'Leary.

Quote from: TrotskyI hereby solemnly swear to stop yanking the Doomers' chains.  I've made my opinion of them clear. It hasn't changed, but it is Streisand Effect to engage with them.  I will concentrate on the good things, keep things in perspective, and try to lead by example.

It's weird to label people doomers when the season is objectively awful. Given our results this season, it seems the people out of whack are the optimists who think things are fine and dandy as we meander through the most disappointing season in 30+ years.

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: TrotskyI hereby solemnly swear to stop yanking the Doomers' chains.  I've made my opinion of them clear. It hasn't changed, but it is Streisand Effect to engage with them.  I will concentrate on the good things, keep things in perspective, and try to lead by example.

It's weird to label people doomers when the season is objectively awful. Given our results this season, it seems the people out of whack are the optimists who think things are fine and dandy as we meander through the most disappointing season in 30+ years.

Stop with this nonsense.  No one here thinks things are "fine and dandy."  But no one else is this obsessive about finding out who the culprit is that's the cause of this so we can pin blame for it.

Quote from: Al DeFlorio

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: TrotskyI hereby solemnly swear to stop yanking the Doomers' chains.  I've made my opinion of them clear. It hasn't changed, but it is Streisand Effect to engage with them.  I will concentrate on the good things, keep things in perspective, and try to lead by example.

It's weird to label people doomers when the season is objectively awful. Given our results this season, it seems the people out of whack are the optimists who think things are fine and dandy as we meander through the most disappointing season in 30+ years.

Stop with this nonsense.  No one here thinks things are "fine and dandy."  But no one else is this obsessive about finding out who the culprit is that's the cause of this so we can pin blame for it.

And no one else here has the same degree of sick entitlement that demands answers to questions that are - should be - and in any true team will be none of our business.

Quote from: marty

Quote from: Al DeFlorio

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: TrotskyI hereby solemnly swear to stop yanking the Doomers' chains.  I've made my opinion of them clear. It hasn't changed, but it is Streisand Effect to engage with them.  I will concentrate on the good things, keep things in perspective, and try to lead by example.

It's weird to label people doomers when the season is objectively awful. Given our results this season, it seems the people out of whack are the optimists who think things are fine and dandy as we meander through the most disappointing season in 30+ years.

Stop with this nonsense.  No one here thinks things are "fine and dandy."  But no one else is this obsessive about finding out who the culprit is that's the cause of this so we can pin blame for it.

And no one else here has the same degree of sick entitlement that demands answers to questions that are - should be - and in any true team will be none of our business.

i can't believe that you are genuinely this incurious. it's sports not national defense. this kind of pious crap is why my first dedicated online posting was trolling the Clarkson Roundtable.

Quote from: marty

Quote from: Al DeFlorio

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: TrotskyI hereby solemnly swear to stop yanking the Doomers' chains.  I've made my opinion of them clear. It hasn't changed, but it is Streisand Effect to engage with them.  I will concentrate on the good things, keep things in perspective, and try to lead by example.

It's weird to label people doomers when the season is objectively awful. Given our results this season, it seems the people out of whack are the optimists who think things are fine and dandy as we meander through the most disappointing season in 30+ years.

Stop with this nonsense.  No one here thinks things are "fine and dandy."  But no one else is this obsessive about finding out who the culprit is that's the cause of this so we can pin blame for it.

And no one else here has the same degree of sick entitlement that demands answers to questions that are - should be - and in any true team will be none of our business.

I'm not sure if my posting has driven you insane but you seem totally oblivious to the fact that I am a FAN posting on a SPORTS FORUM. I'm not knocking on the door of the Cornell Daily Sun or Cornell Sports Media or CHN demanding they answer my questions. Indeed, I have demanded absolutely nothing. I listed a number of questions to which I'd love to know the answer and bemoaned the fact they won't be answered. (I later clarified that my bemoaning was from a selfish perspective as a fan of the team and was not making any normative claim as to how things ought to be.) We're in the midst of the most disappointing season in 30+ years and it's so objectionable to you that I'm curious as to what is going on? It's so objectionable to question any decision by the coaching staff or make inferences about who is or isn't injured? (You went off on me yesterday for suggesting Shane is healthy because he's started every game.) Have you never been on a sports discussion forum before?

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: marty

Quote from: Al DeFlorio

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: TrotskyI hereby solemnly swear to stop yanking the Doomers' chains.  I've made my opinion of them clear. It hasn't changed, but it is Streisand Effect to engage with them.  I will concentrate on the good things, keep things in perspective, and try to lead by example.

It's weird to label people doomers when the season is objectively awful. Given our results this season, it seems the people out of whack are the optimists who think things are fine and dandy as we meander through the most disappointing season in 30+ years.

Stop with this nonsense.  No one here thinks things are "fine and dandy."  But no one else is this obsessive about finding out who the culprit is that's the cause of this so we can pin blame for it.

And no one else here has the same degree of sick entitlement that demands answers to questions that are - should be - and in any true team will be none of our business.

I'm not sure if my posting has driven you insane but you seem totally oblivious to the fact that I am a FAN posting on a SPORTS FORUM. I'm not knocking on the door of the Cornell Daily Sun or Cornell Sports Media or CHN demanding they answer my questions. Indeed, I have demanded absolutely nothing. I listed a number of questions to which I'd love to know the answer and bemoaned the fact they won't be answered. (I later clarified that my bemoaning was from a selfish perspective as a fan of the team and was not making any normative claim as to how things ought to be.) We're in the midst of the most disappointing season in 30+ years and it's so objectionable to you that I'm curious as to what is going on? It's so objectionable to question any decision by the coaching staff or make inferences about who is or isn't injured? (You went off on me yesterday for suggesting Shane is healthy because he's started every game.) Have you never been on a sports discussion forum before?

If you had simply listed a number of questions I wouldn't be sick of your posts.  You listed question after question ad nauseum. It didn't make me insane just sick of reading these unending queries which won't be answered by the coach or anyone else on the inside.

And the fact that I might have missed that you realize that some of this is selfish gets lost because I don't carefully read all of your posts. It gets tiresome.

We're sad that the season hasn't gone the way most of us expected.  It's just that your way of expressing your disappointment is not helping me get through this season.  It only gives me another reason to feel bad.

.

.

Why are people sick of Bearlover? Because he tells the truth. This is the first time in 20 years we have not been good, why shouldn't we be upset? We care about the team and that's a good thing. You want us to not care and fade into irrelevance like Brown or Princeton?

We are at a crossroads where we are in serious trouble with the new CHL rules, a new coach, and a Wild West transfer portal to deeply fall as a program. Just look at other ECAC programs and how quickly they fell. This is serious and someone needs to recognize it.

Hell I've had a feud with him for two years and the fact is he is right. Something is going on and it would be nice to know why instead of watch the team consistently underperform compared to last year which was basically the same team.

2014-15 was 20 years ago?

I'm not worried about the transfer portal or CHL stuff because we have never had trouble with losing people to the portal and we're always great at bringing in Canadians and we are bringing in a new Canadian coach. If anything the CHL change should help us, getting talented, old Canadian players that age out.

Quote from: chimpfoodI'm not worried about the transfer portal or CHL stuff because we have never had trouble with losing people to the portal and we're always great at bringing in Canadians and we are bringing in a new Canadian coach. If anything the CHL change should help us, getting talented, old Canadian players that age out.

I'm not sure we're going to get those aged out players. Those players likely don't plan on playing for a U.S. university (otherwise they wouldn't have committed earlier), and so I'm unsure they would have the requisite academics for a place like Cornell? Just looking at recruiting in the last month or two, Quinnipiac and a lot of lesser hockey schools seem to have recruited CHL kids who are aging out, while Cornell and a few other Ivies appear to be targeting younger kids who are starting or will soon start their CHL careers. With that said, it's true our proximity to Canada plus our Canadian coach should help.

I agree we probably won't lose any/many players to the portal. Though, this next offseason is uncharted terrain. We have never had a coaching change during the transfer portal. Also, we will probably be coming off of a hugely disappointing season.

I think the coach-in-waiting plan just wasn't a smart idea. Notre Dame is trying the same thing and it hasn't worked for them either. I'm actually excited to see what Casey can do next year as the full time head coach. Whatever's going on this season just isn't working out.

People on here love to heckle me for suggesting a problem with the coaching, but at this point things have gotten so bad that I believe the burden is on the coaching-defenders to justify that the coaching is fine and dandy. Once again, when the whole team regresses, it's hard to pin that on the players.

Quote from: Big DingusWhy are people sick of Bearlover? Because he tells the truth. This is the first time in 20 years we have not been good, why shouldn't we be upset? We care about the team and that's a good thing. You want us to not care and fade into irrelevance like Brown or Princeton?

We are at a crossroads where we are in serious trouble with the new CHL rules, a new coach, and a Wild West transfer portal to deeply fall as a program. Just look at other ECAC programs and how quickly they fell. This is serious and someone needs to recognize it.

Hell I've had a feud with him for two years and the fact is he is right. Something is going on and it would be nice to know why instead of watch the team consistently underperform compared to last year which was basically the same team.

I'll try to be say it succinctly - again - without attacking ... The issue is not saying that this team is having issues, or underachieving - I've said it myself, all the time.  The issue is trying to ascribe it to "coaching" -- using "reasons" that are specious, based on nothing, and not true on any base level. And then being absolutely so sure of himself about it.

Quote from: adamw

Quote from: Big DingusWhy are people sick of Bearlover? Because he tells the truth. This is the first time in 20 years we have not been good, why shouldn't we be upset? We care about the team and that's a good thing. You want us to not care and fade into irrelevance like Brown or Princeton?

We are at a crossroads where we are in serious trouble with the new CHL rules, a new coach, and a Wild West transfer portal to deeply fall as a program. Just look at other ECAC programs and how quickly they fell. This is serious and someone needs to recognize it.

Hell I've had a feud with him for two years and the fact is he is right. Something is going on and it would be nice to know why instead of watch the team consistently underperform compared to last year which was basically the same team.

I'll try to be say it succinctly - again - without attacking ... The issue is not saying that this team is having issues, or underachieving - I've said it myself, all the time.  The issue is trying to ascribe it to "coaching" -- using "reasons" that are specious, based on nothing, and not true on any base level. And then being absolutely so sure of himself about it.

Yawn. First of all, I'm still waiting on an alternative viewpoint as to why the entire team has regressed. Secondly, I couch all of my thoughts with "I think" or "this suggests to me" or similar. So, obviously I am not certain of anything I'm saying and I am careful to convey that.

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: adamw

Quote from: Big DingusWhy are people sick of Bearlover? Because he tells the truth. This is the first time in 20 years we have not been good, why shouldn't we be upset? We care about the team and that's a good thing. You want us to not care and fade into irrelevance like Brown or Princeton?

We are at a crossroads where we are in serious trouble with the new CHL rules, a new coach, and a Wild West transfer portal to deeply fall as a program. Just look at other ECAC programs and how quickly they fell. This is serious and someone needs to recognize it.

Hell I've had a feud with him for two years and the fact is he is right. Something is going on and it would be nice to know why instead of watch the team consistently underperform compared to last year which was basically the same team.

I'll try to be say it succinctly - again - without attacking ... The issue is not saying that this team is having issues, or underachieving - I've said it myself, all the time.  The issue is trying to ascribe it to "coaching" -- using "reasons" that are specious, based on nothing, and not true on any base level. And then being absolutely so sure of himself about it.

Yawn. First of all, I'm still waiting on an alternative viewpoint as to why the entire team has regressed. Secondly, I couch all of my thoughts with "I think" or "this suggests to me" or similar. So, obviously I am not certain of anything I'm saying and I am careful to convey that.

Repeating ... Asked and answered.

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: adamw

Quote from: Big DingusWhy are people sick of Bearlover? Because he tells the truth. This is the first time in 20 years we have not been good, why shouldn't we be upset? We care about the team and that's a good thing. You want us to not care and fade into irrelevance like Brown or Princeton?

We are at a crossroads where we are in serious trouble with the new CHL rules, a new coach, and a Wild West transfer portal to deeply fall as a program. Just look at other ECAC programs and how quickly they fell. This is serious and someone needs to recognize it.

Hell I've had a feud with him for two years and the fact is he is right. Something is going on and it would be nice to know why instead of watch the team consistently underperform compared to last year which was basically the same team.

I'll try to be say it succinctly - again - without attacking ... The issue is not saying that this team is having issues, or underachieving - I've said it myself, all the time.  The issue is trying to ascribe it to "coaching" -- using "reasons" that are specious, based on nothing, and not true on any base level. And then being absolutely so sure of himself about it.

Yawn. First of all, I'm still waiting on an alternative viewpoint as to why the entire team has regressed. Secondly, I couch all of my thoughts with "I think" or "this suggests to me" or similar. So, obviously I am not certain of anything I'm saying and I am careful to convey that.

Injuries + youth + weak freshman class + whatever is going on with Ian Shane (which, to be fair to him, might be a knock on effect of the injuries + youth bit in terms of the team in front of him) explains things more than adequately. In fact, I could make a reasonable argument that the season to date has been disappointing but well within the range of expectation given that:

1. The team lost one player, but he was BY FAR the best playmaker they had
2. The team lost a lot of other game and practice time to injuries and has been juggling lines throughout
3. The team is still really young, anchored by 10 sophomores of the "4 year college hockey player hoping to get good enough to land in the pros" type rather than the "2 years to prep for a jump to a 2-way contract and a chance at the NHL" type

That doesn't mean the coaching staff isn't making any mistakes. And yes, maybe the coach in waiting thing is just a bad setup and that's causing some of the inconsistency. That said, I don't really buy the argument that coaching issues are the cause of the problems. From what I've seen a lack of consistency and special teams problems are the biggest issues with this year's team, and those are precisely the things that are hardest for a coach to address when you have a revolving door of injuries.

The one exception I'd note is the PP unit's continued impotency despite having all more consistency there. This is, I think, a bit of a weakness in the coaching staff, but it's not a new one. As far as I can tell Schafer hasn't meaningfully changed his PP sets since the Doug Murray era, and since then Cornell's PP has ranged from mediocre to excellent with more of the former than the latter. When they've got the right personnel, they do well. When they don't, yuck. They don't have the right personnel this year, and Seger was likely the reason we weren't tearing our hair out last year. That said, I'd expect the PP to regress to the mean and be mediocre the rest of the season (which, of course, would be a tremendous improvement). I also don't think it's an accident that folks around here are talking about how much better it's looked since the break, when the team had more focused practice time to work out some of the kinks. Improving special teams takes a lot of reps, and I'm betting with all the injuries they weren't able to focus on them as much as they needed to because they had to get guys slotted into new even strength roles every week.

Unless the injury situation stabilizes I wouldn't expect this team's final record to live up to anything like its pre-season potential - which, to be clear, I would have put at "league title + at large contender with a strong chance of a favorable first round NCAA matchup" rather than "1 seed in the NCAAs competing for national title" - regardless of whatever the current coaching setup is doing. Assuming the injury run tapers off I expect things will look a little better as time goes by but it'll be 1-2 weeks after Penney and company return before they look like what we thought they'd be.

Quote from: ugarte

Quote from: marty

Quote from: Al DeFlorio

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: TrotskyI hereby solemnly swear to stop yanking the Doomers' chains.  I've made my opinion of them clear. It hasn't changed, but it is Streisand Effect to engage with them.  I will concentrate on the good things, keep things in perspective, and try to lead by example.

It's weird to label people doomers when the season is objectively awful. Given our results this season, it seems the people out of whack are the optimists who think things are fine and dandy as we meander through the most disappointing season in 30+ years.

Stop with this nonsense.  No one here thinks things are "fine and dandy."  But no one else is this obsessive about finding out who the culprit is that's the cause of this so we can pin blame for it.

And no one else here has the same degree of sick entitlement that demands answers to questions that are - should be - and in any true team will be none of our business.

i can't believe that you are genuinely this incurious. it's sports not national defense. this kind of pious crap is why my first dedicated online posting was trolling the Clarkson Roundtable.

but but but.... our red are AWESOME!

(Did I do that right? It's been a very long time....)

Quote from: adamw

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: adamw

Quote from: Big DingusWhy are people sick of Bearlover? Because he tells the truth. This is the first time in 20 years we have not been good, why shouldn't we be upset? We care about the team and that's a good thing. You want us to not care and fade into irrelevance like Brown or Princeton?

We are at a crossroads where we are in serious trouble with the new CHL rules, a new coach, and a Wild West transfer portal to deeply fall as a program. Just look at other ECAC programs and how quickly they fell. This is serious and someone needs to recognize it.

Hell I've had a feud with him for two years and the fact is he is right. Something is going on and it would be nice to know why instead of watch the team consistently underperform compared to last year which was basically the same team.

I'll try to be say it succinctly - again - without attacking ... The issue is not saying that this team is having issues, or underachieving - I've said it myself, all the time.  The issue is trying to ascribe it to "coaching" -- using "reasons" that are specious, based on nothing, and not true on any base level. And then being absolutely so sure of himself about it.

Yawn. First of all, I'm still waiting on an alternative viewpoint as to why the entire team has regressed. Secondly, I couch all of my thoughts with "I think" or "this suggests to me" or similar. So, obviously I am not certain of anything I'm saying and I am careful to convey that.

Repeating ... Asked and answered.

Alright, since you continue to refuse to restate whatever is your conclusion, and also refuse to provide a link or direction to your conclusion, I'm just going to assume it doesn't exist.

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: adamw

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: adamw

Quote from: Big DingusWhy are people sick of Bearlover? Because he tells the truth. This is the first time in 20 years we have not been good, why shouldn't we be upset? We care about the team and that's a good thing. You want us to not care and fade into irrelevance like Brown or Princeton?

We are at a crossroads where we are in serious trouble with the new CHL rules, a new coach, and a Wild West transfer portal to deeply fall as a program. Just look at other ECAC programs and how quickly they fell. This is serious and someone needs to recognize it.

Hell I've had a feud with him for two years and the fact is he is right. Something is going on and it would be nice to know why instead of watch the team consistently underperform compared to last year which was basically the same team.

I'll try to be say it succinctly - again - without attacking ... The issue is not saying that this team is having issues, or underachieving - I've said it myself, all the time.  The issue is trying to ascribe it to "coaching" -- using "reasons" that are specious, based on nothing, and not true on any base level. And then being absolutely so sure of himself about it.

Yawn. First of all, I'm still waiting on an alternative viewpoint as to why the entire team has regressed. Secondly, I couch all of my thoughts with "I think" or "this suggests to me" or similar. So, obviously I am not certain of anything I'm saying and I am careful to convey that.

Repeating ... Asked and answered.

Alright, since you continue to refuse to restate whatever is your conclusion, and also refuse to provide a link or direction to your conclusion, I'm just going to assume it doesn't exist.

please man, stop. you are pretty clear about your reasoning - which is basically a blunt ockham's razor - and adam has provided his reasoning for why that's not the "obvious" answer to what you see, based on historic evidence from the program, multiple times. you are asking him to offer proof that your calculation of angels on the head of a pin is off. if i were to offer an alternate conclusion - not that i have any actual conclusion - it would be "shit happens."

Quote from: ugarte

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: adamw

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: adamw

Quote from: Big DingusWhy are people sick of Bearlover? Because he tells the truth. This is the first time in 20 years we have not been good, why shouldn't we be upset? We care about the team and that's a good thing. You want us to not care and fade into irrelevance like Brown or Princeton?

We are at a crossroads where we are in serious trouble with the new CHL rules, a new coach, and a Wild West transfer portal to deeply fall as a program. Just look at other ECAC programs and how quickly they fell. This is serious and someone needs to recognize it.

Hell I've had a feud with him for two years and the fact is he is right. Something is going on and it would be nice to know why instead of watch the team consistently underperform compared to last year which was basically the same team.

I'll try to be say it succinctly - again - without attacking ... The issue is not saying that this team is having issues, or underachieving - I've said it myself, all the time.  The issue is trying to ascribe it to "coaching" -- using "reasons" that are specious, based on nothing, and not true on any base level. And then being absolutely so sure of himself about it.

Yawn. First of all, I'm still waiting on an alternative viewpoint as to why the entire team has regressed. Secondly, I couch all of my thoughts with "I think" or "this suggests to me" or similar. So, obviously I am not certain of anything I'm saying and I am careful to convey that.

Repeating ... Asked and answered.

Alright, since you continue to refuse to restate whatever is your conclusion, and also refuse to provide a link or direction to your conclusion, I'm just going to assume it doesn't exist.

please man, stop. you are pretty clear about your reasoning - which is basically a blunt ockham's razor - and adam has provided his reasoning for why that's not the "obvious" answer to what you see, based on historic evidence from the program, multiple times. you are asking him to offer proof that your calculation of angels on the head of a pin is off. if i were to offer an alternate conclusion - not that i have any actual conclusion - it would be "shit happens."

No, I think you have this backwards tbh.
>I suggest there's coaching issue
>adamw says no, you'd have to be stupid to think that
>I ask adamw, "OK, do you have an alternative viewpoint (as in, not having to do with the coaching) as to why the entire team has regressed this season?"
>adamw claims he's answered this question already

On the other hand, Tom Lento's nuanced post is great, FWIW.

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: ugarte

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: adamw

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: adamw

Quote from: Big DingusWhy are people sick of Bearlover? Because he tells the truth. This is the first time in 20 years we have not been good, why shouldn't we be upset? We care about the team and that's a good thing. You want us to not care and fade into irrelevance like Brown or Princeton?

We are at a crossroads where we are in serious trouble with the new CHL rules, a new coach, and a Wild West transfer portal to deeply fall as a program. Just look at other ECAC programs and how quickly they fell. This is serious and someone needs to recognize it.

Hell I've had a feud with him for two years and the fact is he is right. Something is going on and it would be nice to know why instead of watch the team consistently underperform compared to last year which was basically the same team.

I'll try to be say it succinctly - again - without attacking ... The issue is not saying that this team is having issues, or underachieving - I've said it myself, all the time.  The issue is trying to ascribe it to "coaching" -- using "reasons" that are specious, based on nothing, and not true on any base level. And then being absolutely so sure of himself about it.

Yawn. First of all, I'm still waiting on an alternative viewpoint as to why the entire team has regressed. Secondly, I couch all of my thoughts with "I think" or "this suggests to me" or similar. So, obviously I am not certain of anything I'm saying and I am careful to convey that.

Repeating ... Asked and answered.

Alright, since you continue to refuse to restate whatever is your conclusion, and also refuse to provide a link or direction to your conclusion, I'm just going to assume it doesn't exist.

please man, stop. you are pretty clear about your reasoning - which is basically a blunt ockham's razor - and adam has provided his reasoning for why that's not the "obvious" answer to what you see, based on historic evidence from the program, multiple times. you are asking him to offer proof that your calculation of angels on the head of a pin is off. if i were to offer an alternate conclusion - not that i have any actual conclusion - it would be "shit happens."

No, I think you have this backwards tbh.
>I suggest there's coaching issue
>adamw says no, you'd have to be stupid to think that
>I ask adamw, "OK, do you have an alternative viewpoint (as in, not having to do with the coaching) as to why the entire team has regressed this season?"
>adamw claims he's answered this question already

On the other hand, Tom Lento's nuanced post is great, FWIW.

i don't want to speak for him, yet i will. he doesn't have an alternate viewpoint, if he did it would pretty much be "shit happens," but his belief is that historical evidence suggests that "coaching bad" is a crude conclusion from a small sample.

Quote from: Tom Lento

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: adamw

Quote from: Big DingusWhy are people sick of Bearlover? Because he tells the truth. This is the first time in 20 years we have not been good, why shouldn't we be upset? We care about the team and that's a good thing. You want us to not care and fade into irrelevance like Brown or Princeton?

We are at a crossroads where we are in serious trouble with the new CHL rules, a new coach, and a Wild West transfer portal to deeply fall as a program. Just look at other ECAC programs and how quickly they fell. This is serious and someone needs to recognize it.

Hell I've had a feud with him for two years and the fact is he is right. Something is going on and it would be nice to know why instead of watch the team consistently underperform compared to last year which was basically the same team.

I'll try to be say it succinctly - again - without attacking ... The issue is not saying that this team is having issues, or underachieving - I've said it myself, all the time.  The issue is trying to ascribe it to "coaching" -- using "reasons" that are specious, based on nothing, and not true on any base level. And then being absolutely so sure of himself about it.

Yawn. First of all, I'm still waiting on an alternative viewpoint as to why the entire team has regressed. Secondly, I couch all of my thoughts with "I think" or "this suggests to me" or similar. So, obviously I am not certain of anything I'm saying and I am careful to convey that.

Injuries + youth + weak freshman class + whatever is going on with Ian Shane (which, to be fair to him, might be a knock on effect of the injuries + youth bit in terms of the team in front of him) explains things more than adequately. In fact, I could make a reasonable argument that the season to date has been disappointing but well within the range of expectation given that:

1. The team lost one player, but he was BY FAR the best playmaker they had
2. The team lost a lot of other game and practice time to injuries and has been juggling lines throughout
3. The team is still really young, anchored by 10 sophomores of the "4 year college hockey player hoping to get good enough to land in the pros" type rather than the "2 years to prep for a jump to a 2-way contract and a chance at the NHL" type

That doesn't mean the coaching staff isn't making any mistakes. And yes, maybe the coach in waiting thing is just a bad setup and that's causing some of the inconsistency. That said, I don't really buy the argument that coaching issues are the cause of the problems. From what I've seen a lack of consistency and special teams problems are the biggest issues with this year's team, and those are precisely the things that are hardest for a coach to address when you have a revolving door of injuries.

The one exception I'd note is the PP unit's continued impotency despite having all more consistency there. This is, I think, a bit of a weakness in the coaching staff, but it's not a new one. As far as I can tell Schafer hasn't meaningfully changed his PP sets since the Doug Murray era, and since then Cornell's PP has ranged from mediocre to excellent with more of the former than the latter. When they've got the right personnel, they do well. When they don't, yuck. They don't have the right personnel this year, and Seger was likely the reason we weren't tearing our hair out last year. That said, I'd expect the PP to regress to the mean and be mediocre the rest of the season (which, of course, would be a tremendous improvement). I also don't think it's an accident that folks around here are talking about how much better it's looked since the break, when the team had more focused practice time to work out some of the kinks. Improving special teams takes a lot of reps, and I'm betting with all the injuries they weren't able to focus on them as much as they needed to because they had to get guys slotted into new even strength roles every week.

Unless the injury situation stabilizes I wouldn't expect this team's final record to live up to anything like its pre-season potential - which, to be clear, I would have put at "league title + at large contender with a strong chance of a favorable first round NCAA matchup" rather than "1 seed in the NCAAs competing for national title" - regardless of whatever the current coaching setup is doing. Assuming the injury run tapers off I expect things will look a little better as time goes by but it'll be 1-2 weeks after Penney and company return before they look like what we thought they'd be.

This sums it up well. I'll add in my usual drumbeat of a younger offensively skilled team struggling against lower skilled physical opponents who can clog the net front on both ends. SHU's 2nd and 3rd goals were rebounds that we could maybe have cleaned up with a better presence down low.

You might not be worried but you should be.

Big schools now have massive recruiting power and with the "Ivy" degree not as useful anymore, it really makes sense to go to some of these bigger state schools with more money, more parties and the same job placements.

Recruiting will completely change

One thing the PP really misses is vision and playmaking ability from the forwards. That more than anything was where Seger excelled. Cornell tried to use Major in that role but it hasn't worked out. He's only a freshman, he may well be great in future years. But the fact Cornell needed to slot a freshman in that role from day 1 was a sign of weakness. Cornell has Robertson and Fegaras up top, but who among the forwards is setting anybody up? Bancroft and Walsh are scorers, Castagna has amazing hands but passing doesn't appear to be his strength. DeSantis has been weirdly ineffective since a great freshman season. I don't think it's a coincidence that our PPs start with the D playing catch at the point for 20 seconds before the puck is quickly turned over down low.

Quote from: BearLoverNo, I think you have this backwards tbh.
>I suggest there's coaching issue
>adamw says no, you'd have to be stupid to think that
>I ask adamw, "OK, do you have an alternative viewpoint (as in, not having to do with the coaching) as to why the entire team has regressed this season?"
>adamw claims he's answered this question already

On the other hand, Tom Lento's nuanced post is great, FWIW.

Alright! It didn't come directly from Adamw, but he's certainly hinted at some things like those Tom Lento mentions. But even if Adam hadn't done so, maybe now the sniping between BL & Adamw can end.

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: ugarte

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: adamw

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: adamw

Quote from: Big DingusWhy are people sick of Bearlover? Because he tells the truth. This is the first time in 20 years we have not been good, why shouldn't we be upset? We care about the team and that's a good thing. You want us to not care and fade into irrelevance like Brown or Princeton?

We are at a crossroads where we are in serious trouble with the new CHL rules, a new coach, and a Wild West transfer portal to deeply fall as a program. Just look at other ECAC programs and how quickly they fell. This is serious and someone needs to recognize it.

Hell I've had a feud with him for two years and the fact is he is right. Something is going on and it would be nice to know why instead of watch the team consistently underperform compared to last year which was basically the same team.

I'll try to be say it succinctly - again - without attacking ... The issue is not saying that this team is having issues, or underachieving - I've said it myself, all the time.  The issue is trying to ascribe it to "coaching" -- using "reasons" that are specious, based on nothing, and not true on any base level. And then being absolutely so sure of himself about it.

Yawn. First of all, I'm still waiting on an alternative viewpoint as to why the entire team has regressed. Secondly, I couch all of my thoughts with "I think" or "this suggests to me" or similar. So, obviously I am not certain of anything I'm saying and I am careful to convey that.

Repeating ... Asked and answered.

Alright, since you continue to refuse to restate whatever is your conclusion, and also refuse to provide a link or direction to your conclusion, I'm just going to assume it doesn't exist.

please man, stop. you are pretty clear about your reasoning - which is basically a blunt ockham's razor - and adam has provided his reasoning for why that's not the "obvious" answer to what you see, based on historic evidence from the program, multiple times. you are asking him to offer proof that your calculation of angels on the head of a pin is off. if i were to offer an alternate conclusion - not that i have any actual conclusion - it would be "shit happens."

No, I think you have this backwards tbh.
>I suggest there's coaching issue
>adamw says no, you'd have to be stupid to think that
>I ask adamw, "OK, do you have an alternative viewpoint (as in, not having to do with the coaching) as to why the entire team has regressed this season?"
>adamw claims he's answered this question already

On the other hand, Tom Lento's nuanced post is great, FWIW.

have literally said all the same things - just more briefly. you don't see it, because you don't want to see it.

I think the biggest reason(s) we are where we are today are:

1. Defensive performance, starting with goaltending. In many games, this has resulted in us playing from behind, which I am sure impacts the approach to the game, scoring, trying to do more resulting in being out of sync, etc.

2. Absence of Gabe Seeger, which has impacted the team's offensive production.  Especially his 30 assists. Not to mention his wine % on face-offs, and I believe he also contributed on the PK.

3. Bad puck luck, some of which might be attributed to both of the above.

Injuries happen every year.  Hard to say to what extent people have been playing injured and thus haven't been able to play at 100%, especially when it comes to forechecking and back checking.  

Similarly, while I am sure that two new coaches could have an impact on the team's performance, once again, it is really hard to say to what extent this has actually impacted W-L-T.  

I am curious what the psyche is of the team.  They have to be disappointed (to put it lightly.)  They are competitive athletes and want to win as much as anyone.  I wonder if a sports psychologist is working with the team given where they are right now.

I get it; Seger is gone. But no matter how many times it's brought up, he's not coming back.
We need to have forward vision, and stop looking over our shoulders. They need to make the best with whoever is healthy and hope for the best.
I'm sure it's frustrating for the players but they know injuries happen

The lack of scoring during 5x3's is very notable.  Something is really wrong there.

Quote from: abmarksBecause numbers talk and clownlover shouldn't.

Clownlover has been all over the place; beside himself that the team is blowing their opportunity in what he declared to be a year where we're supposed to legitimately contend for the national title.

Let's get a little perspective here and look at what we did last year. Did we make a deep run?   Yes.   But arguably we overachieved last year after going on a quite unlikely tear.


11 games in we were 6W-3L-1T-1OTL.

In 2023-2024, The day after our 11th game, our pwr rank was 25th with 40 comparison wins and an rpi of .5239

Including all playoff games, we improbably went 16W-3L-5T the rest of the way.

Now let's compare to this season.

After our 11th game on 12/7, out record stood at
4W-3L-3T-1OTW.

In 2024-2025 The day after our 11th game, our pwr rank was 25th with 39 comparison wins and an rpi of .5231

I don't know what happened last year to get the team on track after the holiday break, but something tells me it was part coaching and quite a bit of run good to over achieve.  Basing expectations for this year on where we finished last year and not looking at how we got there is  a mistake.   So far, this year's team and last year's team are effectively the same.

So how'd that turn out?

We won't know until March.

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: abmarksBecause numbers talk and clownlover shouldn't.

Clownlover has been all over the place; beside himself that the team is blowing their opportunity in what he declared to be a year where we're supposed to legitimately contend for the national title.

Let's get a little perspective here and look at what we did last year. Did we make a deep run?   Yes.   But arguably we overachieved last year after going on a quite unlikely tear.


11 games in we were 6W-3L-1T-1OTL.

In 2023-2024, The day after our 11th game, our pwr rank was 25th with 40 comparison wins and an rpi of .5239

Including all playoff games, we improbably went 16W-3L-5T the rest of the way.

Now let's compare to this season.

After our 11th game on 12/7, out record stood at
4W-3L-3T-1OTW.

In 2024-2025 The day after our 11th game, our pwr rank was 25th with 39 comparison wins and an rpi of .5231

I don't know what happened last year to get the team on track after the holiday break, but something tells me it was part coaching and quite a bit of run good to over achieve.  Basing expectations for this year on where we finished last year and not looking at how we got there is  a mistake.   So far, this year's team and last year's team are effectively the same.

So how'd that turn out?

Clownlover is still managing to miss my point ffs.

By any measure, we overachieved in the second half last year.  And even with that hot run needed to win the ecac tourney to get into the NCAA tournament. If the second half was replayed 100 times, with everything the same, I doubt we even sniff the ncaas 10 percent of the time.  We ran hot.

Overachieving last year raised expectations too high amongst some observers: most notably Clownlover.

While we're underperforming against even reasonable expectations so far this year, the injury situation has got to be the undisputed primary cause now that we've been treated to multiple viewings of the Rayhill show.

Quote from: abmarks

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: abmarksBecause numbers talk and clownlover shouldn't.

Clownlover has been all over the place; beside himself that the team is blowing their opportunity in what he declared to be a year where we're supposed to legitimately contend for the national title.

Let's get a little perspective here and look at what we did last year. Did we make a deep run?   Yes.   But arguably we overachieved last year after going on a quite unlikely tear.


11 games in we were 6W-3L-1T-1OTL.

In 2023-2024, The day after our 11th game, our pwr rank was 25th with 40 comparison wins and an rpi of .5239

Including all playoff games, we improbably went 16W-3L-5T the rest of the way.

Now let's compare to this season.

After our 11th game on 12/7, out record stood at
4W-3L-3T-1OTW.

In 2024-2025 The day after our 11th game, our pwr rank was 25th with 39 comparison wins and an rpi of .5231

I don't know what happened last year to get the team on track after the holiday break, but something tells me it was part coaching and quite a bit of run good to over achieve.  Basing expectations for this year on where we finished last year and not looking at how we got there is  a mistake.   So far, this year's team and last year's team are effectively the same.

So how'd that turn out?

Clownlover is still managing to miss my point ffs.

By any measure, we overachieved in the second half last year.  And even with that hot run needed to win the ecac tourney to get into the NCAA tournament. If the second half was replayed 100 times, with everything the same, I doubt we even sniff the ncaas 10 percent of the time.  We ran hot.

Overachieving last year raised expectations too high amongst some observers: most notably Clownlover.

While we're underperforming against even reasonable expectations so far this year, the injury situation has got to be the undisputed primary cause now that we've been treated to multiple viewings of the Rayhill show.

????????

The point you are making is completely nonsensical. By your logic, taking the second half of last season as given, if the first half was replayed 100 times, Cornell would make the NCAAs 90/100 times. As this example demonstrates, it makes literally no sense to view things this way.

Last year Cornell was 13th in the PWR as of the start of the NCAA tournament. That takes into account both the first and second half of the season. By your deranged logic, my expectations were too high because Cornell happened to win more games in the second half than in the first half? Huh????

It's totally irrelevant the order in which Cornell won the games. The end result was an NCAA bid. You're cherry-picking a random chunk of the season and then saying Cornell overachieved during the rest of the season, but you could just as easily do the reverse: pick a different chunk of the season and then argue Cornell underachieved the rest of the season. Or, you could do what anybody with an actual brain would do and evaluate last season in its totality, the result of which was making the NCAA tournament as the 13th best team in the country (and then winning a round before losing to the eventual champs).  

I can't tell if you actually believe the things you say or if you think I'm stupid enough to let you dig out of the hole you dug when you started this thread.

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: abmarks

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: abmarksBecause numbers talk and clownlover shouldn't.

Clownlover has been all over the place; beside himself that the team is blowing their opportunity in what he declared to be a year where we're supposed to legitimately contend for the national title.

Let's get a little perspective here and look at what we did last year. Did we make a deep run?   Yes.   But arguably we overachieved last year after going on a quite unlikely tear.


11 games in we were 6W-3L-1T-1OTL.

In 2023-2024, The day after our 11th game, our pwr rank was 25th with 40 comparison wins and an rpi of .5239

Including all playoff games, we improbably went 16W-3L-5T the rest of the way.

Now let's compare to this season.

After our 11th game on 12/7, out record stood at
4W-3L-3T-1OTW.

In 2024-2025 The day after our 11th game, our pwr rank was 25th with 39 comparison wins and an rpi of .5231

I don't know what happened last year to get the team on track after the holiday break, but something tells me it was part coaching and quite a bit of run good to over achieve.  Basing expectations for this year on where we finished last year and not looking at how we got there is  a mistake.   So far, this year's team and last year's team are effectively the same.

So how'd that turn out?

Clownlover is still managing to miss my point ffs.

By any measure, we overachieved in the second half last year.  And even with that hot run needed to win the ecac tourney to get into the NCAA tournament. If the second half was replayed 100 times, with everything the same, I doubt we even sniff the ncaas 10 percent of the time.  We ran hot.

Overachieving last year raised expectations too high amongst some observers: most notably Clownlover.

While we're underperforming against even reasonable expectations so far this year, the injury situation has got to be the undisputed primary cause now that we've been treated to multiple viewings of the Rayhill show.

????????

The point you are making is completely nonsensical. By your logic, taking the second half of last season as given, if the first half was replayed 100 times, Cornell would make the NCAAs 90/100 times. As this example demonstrates, it makes literally no sense to view things this way.

Last year Cornell was 13th in the PWR as of the start of the NCAA tournament. That takes into account both the first and second half of the season. By your deranged logic, my expectations were too high because Cornell happened to win more games in the second half than in the first half? Huh????

It's totally irrelevant the order in which Cornell won the games. The end result was an NCAA bid. You're cherry-picking a random chunk of the season and then saying Cornell overachieved during the rest of the season, but you could just as easily do the reverse: pick a different chunk of the season and then argue Cornell underachieved the rest of the season. Or, you could do what anybody with an actual brain would do and evaluate last season in its totality, the result of which was making the NCAA tournament as the 13th best team in the country (and then winning a round before losing to the eventual champs).  

I can't tell if you actually believe the things you say or if you think I'm stupid enough to let you dig out of the hole you dug when you started this thread.

Literacy check?

QuoteIf the second half was replayed 100 times, with everything the same, I doubt we even sniff the ncaas 10 percent of the time.

Talk about interpreting something the way you want to see it.   My fault for leaving room to read that two different ways.

When I said "with everything the same" I meant no variables, like injuries, change. The inputs are constant, not the outputs.  Rewind the time machine to puck drop for each of those games and replay it 100 times.

Picture a monte carlo sim where first half results are fixed but second half varies per a monte carlo simulation.

Our second half record is going to be worse almost every time and we only finish on the bubble or in the tourny 10 percent.   We whiff the tournament over 90 percent of the time.

Quote from: BearLoverIt's totally irrelevant the order in which Cornell won the games. The end result was an NCAA bid.

This is where you're wrong. In sports, things come in streaks, you get hot and cold. There are intangibles like momentum. If Cornell went on a 20 game heater to start the season then collapsed to lose 7 and tie 6 over the last month, that's a very different team with different expectations. Last year they got hot and made a run. That's hockey.

Quote from: abmarks

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: abmarks

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: abmarksBecause numbers talk and clownlover shouldn't.

Clownlover has been all over the place; beside himself that the team is blowing their opportunity in what he declared to be a year where we're supposed to legitimately contend for the national title.

Let's get a little perspective here and look at what we did last year. Did we make a deep run?   Yes.   But arguably we overachieved last year after going on a quite unlikely tear.


11 games in we were 6W-3L-1T-1OTL.

In 2023-2024, The day after our 11th game, our pwr rank was 25th with 40 comparison wins and an rpi of .5239

Including all playoff games, we improbably went 16W-3L-5T the rest of the way.

Now let's compare to this season.

After our 11th game on 12/7, out record stood at
4W-3L-3T-1OTW.

In 2024-2025 The day after our 11th game, our pwr rank was 25th with 39 comparison wins and an rpi of .5231

I don't know what happened last year to get the team on track after the holiday break, but something tells me it was part coaching and quite a bit of run good to over achieve.  Basing expectations for this year on where we finished last year and not looking at how we got there is  a mistake.   So far, this year's team and last year's team are effectively the same.

So how'd that turn out?

Clownlover is still managing to miss my point ffs.

By any measure, we overachieved in the second half last year.  And even with that hot run needed to win the ecac tourney to get into the NCAA tournament. If the second half was replayed 100 times, with everything the same, I doubt we even sniff the ncaas 10 percent of the time.  We ran hot.

Overachieving last year raised expectations too high amongst some observers: most notably Clownlover.

While we're underperforming against even reasonable expectations so far this year, the injury situation has got to be the undisputed primary cause now that we've been treated to multiple viewings of the Rayhill show.

????????

The point you are making is completely nonsensical. By your logic, taking the second half of last season as given, if the first half was replayed 100 times, Cornell would make the NCAAs 90/100 times. As this example demonstrates, it makes literally no sense to view things this way.

Last year Cornell was 13th in the PWR as of the start of the NCAA tournament. That takes into account both the first and second half of the season. By your deranged logic, my expectations were too high because Cornell happened to win more games in the second half than in the first half? Huh????

It's totally irrelevant the order in which Cornell won the games. The end result was an NCAA bid. You're cherry-picking a random chunk of the season and then saying Cornell overachieved during the rest of the season, but you could just as easily do the reverse: pick a different chunk of the season and then argue Cornell underachieved the rest of the season. Or, you could do what anybody with an actual brain would do and evaluate last season in its totality, the result of which was making the NCAA tournament as the 13th best team in the country (and then winning a round before losing to the eventual champs).  

I can't tell if you actually believe the things you say or if you think I'm stupid enough to let you dig out of the hole you dug when you started this thread.

Literacy check?

QuoteIf the second half was replayed 100 times, with everything the same, I doubt we even sniff the ncaas 10 percent of the time.

Talk about interpreting something the way you want to see it.   My fault for leaving room to read that two different ways.

When I said "with everything the same" I meant no variables, like injuries, change. The inputs are constant, not the outputs.  Rewind the time machine to puck drop for each of those games and replay it 100 times.

Picture a monte carlo sim where first half results are fixed but second half varies per a monte carlo simulation.

Our second half record is going to be worse almost every time and we only finish on the bubble or in the tourny 10 percent.   We whiff the tournament over 90 percent of the time.

Who cares about any of that stuff? Why would you hold the first half fixed? Your point is still total nonsense. You're choosing to hold the worst stretch of the season as fixed and then argue we overachieved because we got lucky in the second half.

You're not making any coherent point by doing this. If anything, you're bolstering my point that we were pretty fucked as of the end of first semester this season. But that's not what you're trying to say. You're trying to say my expectations were too high because Cornell won much more in the second half of the season than in the first half. You're treating the worst stretch of the season as indicative of the team's ability rather than the full season.

There are many reasons why expectations were rightfully high for this team. I'm not going to repeat them here because it's outside the scope of this conversation. The only thing I need to say is this: your point is incoherent because there is no justification for holding constant the worst chunk of the season and then arguing the rest was lucky.

Quote from: The Rancor

Quote from: BearLoverIt's totally irrelevant the order in which Cornell won the games. The end result was an NCAA bid.

This is where you're wrong. In sports, things come in streaks, you get hot and cold. There are intangibles like momentum. If Cornell went on a 20 game heater to start the season then collapsed to lose 7 and tie 6 over the last month, that's a very different team with different expectations. Last year they got hot and made a run. That's hockey.

I think most studies have shown momentum isn't really a thing. Good teams just happen to win a bunch of games in a row sometimes. In any case, I'm not disagreeing with you and whether or not momentum exists, it doesn't change the fact that abmarks's argument is nonsense. Look at the season as a whole, don't cherry pick a random chunk to make a point.

This is the same guy who insisted last season was going to go backwards from the year before ... and then when it actually didn't, is now trying to insist last season is perfectly indicative of where they should've been.

Any wonder ...

Quote from: adamwThis is the same guy who insisted last season was going to go backwards from the year before ... and then when it actually didn't, is now trying to insist last season is perfectly indicative of where they should've been.

Any wonder ...

Lol, so I'm instead supposed to pretend we were mediocre last season? It's called updating your view with new data instead of sticking to the same stubborn viewpoint. Maybe you should try it.

Last year I predicted we finish in the 20s in the Pairwise because we lost like 5/8 of our leading scorers from the prior season and were going to be playing 8+ freshmen every game. This year I thought we would be better given we were very good last year and returned almost everybody. Both were very reasonable predictions whether or not they turned out correct. At least I justify my thinking with more than "Schafer good coach."

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: adamwThis is the same guy who insisted last season was going to go backwards from the year before ... and then when it actually didn't, is now trying to insist last season is perfectly indicative of where they should've been.

Any wonder ...

Lol, so I'm instead supposed to pretend we were mediocre last season? It's called updating your view with new data instead of sticking to the same stubborn viewpoint. Maybe you should try it.

Last year I predicted we finish in the 20s in the Pairwise because we lost like 5/8 of our leading scorers from the prior season and were going to be playing 8+ freshmen every game. This year I thought we would be better given we were very good last year and returned almost everybody. Both were very reasonable predictions whether or not they turned out correct. At least I justify my thinking with more than "Schafer good coach."

::rolleyes::

your drivel would have more merit if you didn't basically call me an idiot for suggesting last year that the team would be better than the year before.

I am once again asking people to chill the fuck out.  I made an ad hom thread for a reason.  If you must act like 10-year old boys, please do it there.

Quote from: TrotskyI am once again asking people to chill the fuck out.  I made an ad hom thread for a reason.  If you must act like 10-year old boys, please do it there.

+1

Quote from: Swampy

Quote from: TrotskyI am once again asking people to chill the fuck out.  I made an ad hom thread for a reason.  If you must act like 10-year old boys, please do it there.

+1

+2

Quote from: Chris H82

Quote from: Swampy

Quote from: TrotskyI am once again asking people to chill the fuck out.  I made an ad hom thread for a reason.  If you must act like 10-year old boys, please do it there.

+1

+2

-1

come on fellow assholes we can turn this around

Quote from: Chris H82

Quote from: Swampy

Quote from: TrotskyI am once again asking people to chill the fuck out.  I made an ad hom thread for a reason.  If you must act like 10-year old boys, please do it there.

+1

+2

+3

Quote from: stereax

Quote from: Chris H82

Quote from: Swampy

Quote from: TrotskyI am once again asking people to chill the fuck out.  I made an ad hom thread for a reason.  If you must act like 10-year old boys, please do it there.

+1

+2

+3

+4

32nd in the Pairwise now.