Another Adam Wodon puff piece... ::nut::::bolt::
https://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2025/01/07_Cornell-Battling-Expectations.php
nice
Quote from: BeeeejAnother Adam Wodon puff piece... ::nut::::bolt::
https://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2025/01/07_Cornell-Battling-Expectations.php
I appreciate this article. It touches on a lot of the things wrong with this team and includes some great quotes from Schafer. I would have really liked if, in addition to noting that Shane and special teams have been bad, Wodon had asked Schafer
why that is the case. Particularly as it ties into the new coaches: who is coaching the PP/PK? (Syer used to coach the PK.) Have any of the systems changed? And in general it would have been nice to hear about how it's been working alongside a new coaching staff this year. Are there any challenges?
All that is to say: it's a really nice article, but it doesn't unravel the mystery of why things are the way they are (other than one euphemism about "players trying to do too much"). Cornell has dealt with injuries in past seasons, but the results have never been this bad.
Quote from: BearLoverQuote from: BeeeejAnother Adam Wodon puff piece... ::nut::::bolt::
https://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2025/01/07_Cornell-Battling-Expectations.php
I appreciate this article. It touches on a lot of the things wrong with this team and includes some great quotes from Schafer. I would have really liked if, in addition to noting that Shane and special teams have been bad, Wodon had asked Schafer why that is the case. Particularly as it ties into the new coaches: who is coaching the PP/PK? (Syer used to coach the PK.) Have any of the systems changed? And in general it would have been nice to hear about how it's been working alongside a new coaching staff this year. Are there any challenges?
All that is to say: it's a really nice article, but it doesn't unravel the mystery of why things are the way they are (other than one euphemism about "players trying to do too much"). Cornell has dealt with injuries in past seasons, but the results have never been this bad.
This sounds like you are attempting to be complimentary, so I'm not going to fan the flames again (this time :)) ... but I will make hopefully one last remark about the coaches and then let it go, for my health. I may need my wife to take my keyboard privileges away to prevent me from responding further, but I'll try...
I didn't ask Coach about the makeup of the coaching staff and whether that's causing any issues for the special teams - because the question is preposterous on its face. I know that, Coach knows that. Why ask him a laughable question? It's like when Fox News says "I'm just asking the question." Not every question is legitimate or needs to be asked.
You say it doesn't "unravel the mystery" - and it's along the lines of your complaints that I haven't offered an alternative explanation. Yet me, here, and in the article, offer numerous alternative explanations. You just refuse to accept them. And one of the explanations -- besides injuries, "doing too much," bad goaltending at times, etc.... (which are some pretty good explanations right there) - are that some things are just the random mysteries and deviations of life. "The coaching/coaches" is about 10,000th on a list of 10,000 things that could be an explanation. It's silly to talk about.
tl;dr, as they say in court "asked and answered, move on"
Quote from: adamwQuote from: BearLoverQuote from: BeeeejAnother Adam Wodon puff piece... ::nut::::bolt::
https://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2025/01/07_Cornell-Battling-Expectations.php
I appreciate this article. It touches on a lot of the things wrong with this team and includes some great quotes from Schafer. I would have really liked if, in addition to noting that Shane and special teams have been bad, Wodon had asked Schafer why that is the case. Particularly as it ties into the new coaches: who is coaching the PP/PK? (Syer used to coach the PK.) Have any of the systems changed? And in general it would have been nice to hear about how it's been working alongside a new coaching staff this year. Are there any challenges?
All that is to say: it's a really nice article, but it doesn't unravel the mystery of why things are the way they are (other than one euphemism about "players trying to do too much"). Cornell has dealt with injuries in past seasons, but the results have never been this bad.
I didn't ask Coach about the makeup of the coaching staff and whether that's causing any issues for the special teams - because the question is preposterous on its face. I know that, Coach knows that. Why ask him a laughable question? It's like when Fox News says "I'm just asking the question." Not every question is legitimate or needs to be asked.
I just strongly disagree that it's preposterous to suggest coaching is playing a role here. Once again: half the coaching staff changed in the offseason. The top assistant left. We now functionally have two head coaches on staff. To suggest coaching is playing a role in the team's lack of success is not the same as saying Schafer or Jones is a bad coach. You could have been really good at your old job, but find a steep learning curve at your new one. Or a boss may need some time to work out the kinks with his new hires. That doesn't mean anybody is bad at their job or incapable of turning it around.
Obviously, you wouldn't ask Schafer: "Does CJ have any clue how to coach the PK? The numbers were much better under Syer!" You would ask, "When you look at the special teams' struggles this year, are you able to identify specific causes? Are you running the same schemes as last season or were changes implemented? In your view, is the team starting to turn the corner on special teams?" You could also ask: "How has it been working with Casey and Corey? Was there an adjustment period or was the coaching staff able to hit the ground running?"
I'm not telling you how to do your job. Obviously you know how to asks these questions better than I do. My point is only that there's nothing accusatory or "preposterous" in these sorts of questions. They're entirely reasonable, IMO.
Quote from: BearLoverObviously, you wouldn't ask Schafer: "Does CJ have any clue how to coach the PK? The numbers were much better under Syer!" You would ask, "When you look at the special teams' struggles this year, are you able to identify specific causes? Are you running the same schemes as last season or were changes implemented? In your view, is the team starting to turn the corner on special teams?" You could also ask: "How has it been working with Casey and Corey? Was there an adjustment period or was the coaching staff able to hit the ground running?"
Here's the thing - none of those questions would get you any further meaningful insights. I already know the answers to those questions, and they're not interesting. There's not nearly as much there as you think there is. Nothing at all in fact. You can choose to believe that or not. We already know where you stand.
Quote from: adamwQuote from: BearLoverObviously, you wouldn't ask Schafer: "Does CJ have any clue how to coach the PK? The numbers were much better under Syer!" You would ask, "When you look at the special teams' struggles this year, are you able to identify specific causes? Are you running the same schemes as last season or were changes implemented? In your view, is the team starting to turn the corner on special teams?" You could also ask: "How has it been working with Casey and Corey? Was there an adjustment period or was the coaching staff able to hit the ground running?"
Here's the thing - none of those questions would get you any further meaningful insights. I already know the answers to those questions, and they're not interesting. There's not nearly as much there as you think there is. Nothing at all in fact. You can choose to believe that or not. We already know where you stand.
You know the dynamic between and among players and coaches? You know the division of labor within the coaching staff? You know the schemes and systems Cornell is running this year, and how they compare to last year's? Come on, man. That's the whole point of asking the questions.
Another thing to keep in mind is that if, say, Schafer knew that Shane was having trouble with a certain save location because he injured something or whatever, the absolute last thing Schafer's gonna do is say that.
To the extent that any strategy gets talked about, after our last actually bad year (I think we were under .500 in the early 2010s or so?), Schafer said we tried something different that season and we were going to go back to whatever we were doing before.
That might've been a tactical shift, or maybe "whatever we were doing before" just meant winning.
Quote from: BeeeejAnother Adam Wodon puff piece... ::nut::::bolt::
https://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2025/01/07_Cornell-Battling-Expectations.php
I appreciated Shafer's candor in this article
Quote from: BearLoverQuote from: adamwQuote from: BearLoverObviously, you wouldn't ask Schafer: "Does CJ have any clue how to coach the PK? The numbers were much better under Syer!" You would ask, "When you look at the special teams' struggles this year, are you able to identify specific causes? Are you running the same schemes as last season or were changes implemented? In your view, is the team starting to turn the corner on special teams?" You could also ask: "How has it been working with Casey and Corey? Was there an adjustment period or was the coaching staff able to hit the ground running?"
Here's the thing - none of those questions would get you any further meaningful insights. I already know the answers to those questions, and they're not interesting. There's not nearly as much there as you think there is. Nothing at all in fact. You can choose to believe that or not. We already know where you stand.
You know the dynamic between and among players and coaches? You know the division of labor within the coaching staff? You know the schemes and systems Cornell is running this year, and how they compare to last year's? Come on, man. That's the whole point of asking the questions.
I dub thee
The Shell Answer Man (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eM_lXgfkwW4)
The eLynah Question Man ? or how I came in out of the fog.
Quote from: DafatoneTo the extent that any strategy gets talked about, after our last actually bad year (I think we were under .500 in the early 2010s or so?), Schafer said we tried something different that season and we were going to go back to whatever we were doing before.
That might've been a tactical shift, or maybe "whatever we were doing before" just meant winning.
It's weird, but I remember that pretty clearly. I'm like 80% sure he explicitly said he was talking about the forecheck. He tried a new forecheck system, the team was bad that year, and then he decided to go back to the prior system because there was "no accountability" under the new system. Something like that.
Quote from: BearLoverQuote from: DafatoneTo the extent that any strategy gets talked about, after our last actually bad year (I think we were under .500 in the early 2010s or so?), Schafer said we tried something different that season and we were going to go back to whatever we were doing before.
That might've been a tactical shift, or maybe "whatever we were doing before" just meant winning.
It's weird, but I remember that pretty clearly. I'm like 80% sure he explicitly said he was talking about the forecheck. He tried a new forecheck system, the team was bad that year, and then he decided to go back to the prior system because there was "no accountability" under the new system. Something like that.
I've located the article!:
https://cornellsun.com/2015/10/21/cornell-mens-hockey-mike-schafer/
Anyway, this is precisely the type of piece I was talking about when I said I was hopeful that someone would do a deeper dive on the hockey team.
(And I regret suggesting the Sun would not write such a piece. Though I have a feeling Schafer volunteered all of this information himself.)
In the new remake of the "Why Can't We Be Friends" music video, BearLover and Adam will be one of the initial pairs shaking hands and hugging each other
Quote from: fastforwardQuote from: BeeeejAnother Adam Wodon puff piece... ::nut::::bolt::
https://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2025/01/07_Cornell-Battling-Expectations.php
I appreciated Shafer's candor in this article
Meanwhile Mike was overall pretty pleased (almost uncharacteristically so) with the way we played this weekend (from his weekly summary):
"It certainly was great to be back in action, and even though I didn't like Saturday night's results, I am overall very happy with our team, and I feel we have turned a corner. We played the type of hockey I feel will lead to success, and we were fairly consistent on our approach both nights.
On Friday night vs. UMass, we came out flying and spent a lot of time in the its end of the ice. The Minutemen took a 1-0 lead with 32 seconds remaining in the first period as a shot took an unfortunate bounce off the glove of goaltender Ian Shane and trickled into the back of the net.
The score remained in favor of UMass until 16:18 of the second period, when sophomore forward Ryan Walsh tallied a wrister off a faceoff 12 seconds after we had been on the power play. The goal was unassisted. UMass took back the lead with 17 seconds remaining in the period with a power play goal, but the scoring remained on our side of the ledger the rest of the way.
We came out flying to start the third period, and it was a good comeback with some resiliency. At 6:52 of the third period, senior defenseman Tim Rego tied the score at 2-all. Rego took a took a cross-ice pass from sophomore defenseman Ben Robertson at the half-wall, and deposited a wrap-around goal past the sprawling goaltender. Less than six minutes later, we took the lead for good. At 12:18, junior forward Dalton Bancroft scored a beautiful goal as he deked the goaltender and fired a shot over the goaltender's near-side shoulder. It was a highlight reel goal and topped the night for us. Sophomore forward Jonathan Castagna won a faceoff in our end with 14 seconds remaining, and sent a shot nearly the length of the ice into an empty net.
Shane made 22 saves in goal, and the UMass netminder stopped 31 shots. We were 0-for-2 on the power play, and they were 1-for-1.
On Saturday evening, we faced an ASU team that is much better than ones we have played in the past. I actually felt we played pretty well against the home team. Hockey comes down to nights on who capitalizes on chances and that is exactly what happened.
Arizona State opened the game with goals at 10:23 and 19:33 of the first period to give the Sun Devils their seventh consecutive win, the longest in program history. The winners increased their lead to 3-0 at 11:39 of the second period, concluding a stretch of 11 straight shot attempts in a span of 73 seconds. With 12 seconds remaining in the second period, Arizona scored on a 4-on-3 power play for a 4-0 decision.
We dominated the third period with a 17-5 shots on goal result against a goaltender that we had seen briefly last season.
Shane made 24 saves, and the Sun Devils goaltender stopped 34 shots. We saw him last year when he entered the game in relief and made 22 saves bringing his total saves against us to 56. He was outstanding on Saturday evening. We were 0-for-1 on the power play, and they were 1-for-4. Obviously we lost, but I felt we played pretty well against ASU. It has been a long time since we have lost a non-conference game.
In one other note, the shutout stoped our consecutive goal scoring at 49 games. The school's longest goal-scoring streak is 262 games (Dec. 29, 1972-Dec. 5, 1981).
We continue our seven-game road trip this weekend in Fairfield, Conn., for a two-game set with non-conference opponent, Sacred Heart (11-8-3). Friday night's game time is 7 pm, and we play again at 5 pm on Saturday. Hope you can come a cheer us on to victory."
2.5 days until the Healing Can Begin.
Or we'll crap out at #39 Sacred Heart and I'll jump into the Palisades fire with the rest of you.
Quote from: BearLoverQuote from: adamwQuote from: BearLoverObviously, you wouldn't ask Schafer: "Does CJ have any clue how to coach the PK? The numbers were much better under Syer!" You would ask, "When you look at the special teams' struggles this year, are you able to identify specific causes? Are you running the same schemes as last season or were changes implemented? In your view, is the team starting to turn the corner on special teams?" You could also ask: "How has it been working with Casey and Corey? Was there an adjustment period or was the coaching staff able to hit the ground running?"
Here's the thing - none of those questions would get you any further meaningful insights. I already know the answers to those questions, and they're not interesting. There's not nearly as much there as you think there is. Nothing at all in fact. You can choose to believe that or not. We already know where you stand.
You know the dynamic between and among players and coaches? You know the division of labor within the coaching staff? You know the schemes and systems Cornell is running this year, and how they compare to last year's? Come on, man. That's the whole point of asking the questions.
yes
Quote from: adamwQuote from: BearLoverQuote from: adamwQuote from: BearLoverObviously, you wouldn't ask Schafer: "Does CJ have any clue how to coach the PK? The numbers were much better under Syer!" You would ask, "When you look at the special teams' struggles this year, are you able to identify specific causes? Are you running the same schemes as last season or were changes implemented? In your view, is the team starting to turn the corner on special teams?" You could also ask: "How has it been working with Casey and Corey? Was there an adjustment period or was the coaching staff able to hit the ground running?"
Here's the thing - none of those questions would get you any further meaningful insights. I already know the answers to those questions, and they're not interesting. There's not nearly as much there as you think there is. Nothing at all in fact. You can choose to believe that or not. We already know where you stand.
You know the dynamic between and among players and coaches? You know the division of labor within the coaching staff? You know the schemes and systems Cornell is running this year, and how they compare to last year's? Come on, man. That's the whole point of asking the questions.
yes
Okay, what are the schemes Cornell is running this year?
Quote from: BearLoverQuote from: adamwQuote from: BearLoverQuote from: adamwQuote from: BearLoverObviously, you wouldn't ask Schafer: "Does CJ have any clue how to coach the PK? The numbers were much better under Syer!" You would ask, "When you look at the special teams' struggles this year, are you able to identify specific causes? Are you running the same schemes as last season or were changes implemented? In your view, is the team starting to turn the corner on special teams?" You could also ask: "How has it been working with Casey and Corey? Was there an adjustment period or was the coaching staff able to hit the ground running?"
Here's the thing - none of those questions would get you any further meaningful insights. I already know the answers to those questions, and they're not interesting. There's not nearly as much there as you think there is. Nothing at all in fact. You can choose to believe that or not. We already know where you stand.
You know the dynamic between and among players and coaches? You know the division of labor within the coaching staff? You know the schemes and systems Cornell is running this year, and how they compare to last year's? Come on, man. That's the whole point of asking the questions.
yes
Okay, what are the schemes Cornell is running this year?
I've not weighed in on all this previously, but man, I have to say, you have seriously become one of the most tiresome and incessantly antagonistic people I've ever encountered, online or off. I can't tell whether you're imitating a sealion or a toddler. But this has pretty much ceased to be at all interesting or useful.
Quote from: BeeeejQuote from: BearLoverQuote from: adamwQuote from: BearLoverQuote from: adamwQuote from: BearLoverObviously, you wouldn't ask Schafer: "Does CJ have any clue how to coach the PK? The numbers were much better under Syer!" You would ask, "When you look at the special teams' struggles this year, are you able to identify specific causes? Are you running the same schemes as last season or were changes implemented? In your view, is the team starting to turn the corner on special teams?" You could also ask: "How has it been working with Casey and Corey? Was there an adjustment period or was the coaching staff able to hit the ground running?"
Here's the thing - none of those questions would get you any further meaningful insights. I already know the answers to those questions, and they're not interesting. There's not nearly as much there as you think there is. Nothing at all in fact. You can choose to believe that or not. We already know where you stand.
You know the dynamic between and among players and coaches? You know the division of labor within the coaching staff? You know the schemes and systems Cornell is running this year, and how they compare to last year's? Come on, man. That's the whole point of asking the questions.
yes
Okay, what are the schemes Cornell is running this year?
I've not weighed in on all this previously, but man, I have to say, you have seriously become one of the most tiresome and incessantly antagonistic people I've ever encountered, online or off. I can't tell whether you're imitating a sealion or a toddler. But this has pretty much ceased to be at all interesting or useful.
Sealion
The above point was that I'm honestly really skeptical that there's a Cornell Hockey insider feeding adamw information about the inner workings of the hockey team. I get he's editor of CHN, but it still doesn't make sense to me why there would be someone on the insider disclosing information to him about Cornell's schemes. It's further annoying that he keeps talking up all the intel he apparently knows, but he won't actually...disclose any of it? Whether on here, on social media, or in his articles.
For what it's worth, it's hard to not be antagonistic when half the forum is constantly calling me an imbecile or literally inventing pejorative terms for me ("clownlover" lol). I'll take a break from this forum.
I apologize for being antagonistic. See everyone later!
I would think there are many who know more they talk about, it just depends on how they know the information.
You might pass on something you heard in CTB but maybe not something you knew from someone in athletics or players or staff.
Like you might say "look out for some injury news" but not say "so n so has a bad ankle"
Quote from: upprdeckI would think there are many who know more they talk about, it just depends on how they know the information.
You might pass on something you heard in CTB but maybe not something you knew from someone in athletics or players or staff.
Like you might say "look out for some injury news" but not say "so n so has a bad ankle"
My obsession with Shane's height began in CTB, funny you should mention it, when I saw this wee fellow on line ahead of me and realized that it was Ian
Quote from: BearLoverThe above point was that I'm honestly really skeptical that there's a Cornell Hockey insider feeding adamw information about the inner workings of the hockey team. I get he's editor of CHN, but it still doesn't make sense to me why there would be someone on the insider disclosing information to him about Cornell's schemes. It's further annoying that he keeps talking up all the intel he apparently knows, but he won't actually...disclose any of it? Whether on here, on social media, or in his articles.
For what it's worth, it's hard to not be antagonistic when half the forum is constantly calling me an imbecile or literally inventing pejorative terms for me ("clownlover" lol). I'll take a break from this forum.
I apologize for being antagonistic. See everyone later!
you have some seriously warped perspectives on how the world works. whether I do or do not have "intel," and who I do or don't talk to, is immaterial. you're making this sound like rocket science or deep state. The point of this repetitive nonsensical verbal exercise is that, if there was anything worth "reporting," I would. I know enough to know that 90% of what you complain about -- like most fans on Internet message boards -- has zero substance. you can infer whatever you want out of me saying this.
Quote from: arugulaMy obsession with Shane's height began in CTB, funny you should mention it, when I saw this wee fellow on line ahead of me and realized that it was Ian
Brian Cropper, 5'6", backstopped Cornell's 30-0, NCAA Championship season in 1970. Of course, everyone was smaller in those days. And, in pre-vegan days, goalie pads were made of leather and smaller, but heavier.
Quote from: George64Quote from: arugulaMy obsession with Shane's height began in CTB, funny you should mention it, when I saw this wee fellow on line ahead of me and realized that it was Ian
Brian Cropper, 5'6", backstopped Cornell's 30-0, NCAA Championship season in 1970. Of course, everyone was smaller in those days. And, in pre-vegan days, goalie pads were made of leather and smaller, but heavier.
Even more so because
EVERYONE KNOWS Ken Dryden was in goal that year. I even thought Ned Harkness, bless his soul, made the mistake when he was interviewed in his advancing years.
Different times, different game. No more 5'6" goalies.
Quote from: George64Quote from: arugulaMy obsession with Shane's height began in CTB, funny you should mention it, when I saw this wee fellow on line ahead of me and realized that it was Ian
Brian Cropper, 5'6", backstopped Cornell's 30-0, NCAA Championship season in 1970. Of course, everyone was smaller in those days. And, in pre-vegan days, goalie pads were made of leather and smaller, but heavier.
It was the system.
Quote from: upprdeckI would think there are many who know more they talk about, it just depends on how they know the information.
You might pass on something you heard in CTB but maybe not something you knew from someone in athletics or players or staff.
Like you might say "look out for some injury news" but not say "so n so has a bad ankle"
It's one thing to see [player redacted] at CTB in a walking boot and another to have insight into the inner workings of the coaching staff or the Xs and Os. I've grown annoyed with things being stated matter-of-factly ("coaching is not a problem and you're an imbecile if you think it is") with no justification whatsoever. There are things we can see with our own eyes at CTB, and things that Schafer discloses at a coach's club meeting, and then there are other things that nobody knows unless they're inside the locker room or Schafer's office. The same was true in discussions of who would or wouldn't be the next head coach. Things were said, some of it was right, some of it was wrong. But all of it was stated unequivocally without explanation.
Quote from: BearLoverQuote from: upprdeckI would think there are many who know more they talk about, it just depends on how they know the information.
You might pass on something you heard in CTB but maybe not something you knew from someone in athletics or players or staff.
Like you might say "look out for some injury news" but not say "so n so has a bad ankle"
It's one thing to see [player redacted] at CTB in a walking boot and another to have insight into the inner workings of the coaching staff or the Xs and Os. I've grown annoyed with things being stated matter-of-factly ("coaching is not a problem and you're an imbecile if you think it is") with no justification whatsoever. There are things we can see with our own eyes at CTB, and things that Schafer discloses at a coach's club meeting, and then there are other things that nobody knows unless they're inside the locker room or Schafer's office. The same was true in discussions of who would or wouldn't be the next head coach. Things were said, some of it was right, some of it was wrong. But all of it was stated unequivocally without explanation.
A lot of the Xs and Os aren't that complicated if you're a hockey professional. It's like football or basketball, where you can watch a game and say "that's a cover 2 defense" or "that's a 3-2 zone."
I can't do this for the most part because I'm not that sort of hockey knower. But it's not like our schemes are a secret.
I'm still very curious why this team is so bad
Not sure we will ever know the answer why this team is so bad.
Incredibly frustrating.
It would nice to see an article like this that provides an in-depth look at what's going on:
https://cornellsun.com/2015/10/21/cornell-mens-hockey-mike-schafer/
Cornell by the numbers:
—55/64 teams in save %*
—35/64 in shooting % (9.4%)
—59/64 in PP% (11%)
—51/64 in PK% (75.6%)
—Cornell has given up the first goal in 11/15 games including six straight
—Cornell has trailed at some point in 13/15 games including seven straight
—if Cornell were to finish this season in its current Pairwise position (29th), it would be the program's second worse finish since at least 2002, which is the earliest I can find a record of. The worst was 36th in the 2014-15 PWR
*.887%, per CHN, but I think sv% is wrong for all teams on CHN, so I wouldn't rely on the specific number. The reason I think it's wrong is that Shane has a slightly higher sv% (.891%) and Keoppel's is 100%, so the average of the two can't possibly be lower. Maybe it's factoring in ENG or something.
Quote from: BearLoverI'm still very curious why this team is so bad
You forgot to put that in the form of a question.
I just read the latest Sun article (https://cornellsun.com/2025/01/11/no-18-mens-hockey-falls-short-against-sacred-heart/), and Casey's comment summarizes what's wrong this season:
Quote from: Casey Jones"I thought last night we probably deserved a better fate. Didn't get it," Jones said. "So we should have responded today and came out with the effort and attitude to get it done here tonight. But we wanted some shortcuts."
Quote from: BearLoverCornell by the numbers:
—55/64 teams in save %*
—35/64 in shooting % (9.4%)
—59/64 in PP% (11%)
—51/64 in PK% (75.6%)
—Cornell has given up the first goal in 11/15 games including six straight
—Cornell has trailed at some point in 13/15 games including seven straight
—if Cornell were to finish this season in its current Pairwise position (29th), it would be the program's second worse finish since at least 2002, which is the earliest I can find a record of. The worst was 36th in the 2014-15 PWR
*.887%, per CHN, but I think sv% is wrong for all teams on CHN, so I wouldn't rely on the specific number. The reason I think it's wrong is that Shane has a slightly higher sv% (.891%) and Keoppel's is 100%, so the average of the two can't possibly be lower. Maybe it's factoring in ENG or something.
Yes, it's not wrong. The team total line includes ENG.
Quote from: adamwQuote from: BearLoverCornell by the numbers:
—55/64 teams in save %*
—35/64 in shooting % (9.4%)
—59/64 in PP% (11%)
—51/64 in PK% (75.6%)
—Cornell has given up the first goal in 11/15 games including six straight
—Cornell has trailed at some point in 13/15 games including seven straight
—if Cornell were to finish this season in its current Pairwise position (29th), it would be the program's second worse finish since at least 2002, which is the earliest I can find a record of. The worst was 36th in the 2014-15 PWR
*.887%, per CHN, but I think sv% is wrong for all teams on CHN, so I wouldn't rely on the specific number. The reason I think it's wrong is that Shane has a slightly higher sv% (.891%) and Keoppel's is 100%, so the average of the two can't possibly be lower. Maybe it's factoring in ENG or something.
Yes, it's not wrong. The team total line includes ENG.
that guy sucks
Cornell has the sixth worst save percentage in college hockey.
Quote from: AW/CHN"That's a Disney movie," Schafer said. "You kind of hope for that. That's our hope every year. But I think that you have to be realistic about how the season has progressed.
Visions of checking the rule book and declaring, "Hey, the book doesn't say a golden retriever can't put on pads and a mask. And ... Timmy has that rare disease, I bet he'll snap right back if his Rover comes through."