ELynah Forum

Quote from: BearLover on November 12, 2025, 08:27:31 PM

Quote from: Tom Lento on November 12, 2025, 07:22:38 PM

Quote from: Dafatone on November 12, 2025, 03:39:02 PM

Quote from: BearLover on November 12, 2025, 03:19:58 PMCornell needs to win at least 3 of its next 4 to have a realistic shot at an at-large bid. I doubt Dartmouth is actually very good so that will not remain a "good loss."

Hoping for some good crowds, don't know if they sold more season ticket packages after earlier reports of underwhelming sales...

And we have officially hit "it's too early for that" season.

But it's never too early for silly historical stats!

Fun fact, within the last 10 years Cornell has advanced to the NCAAs as an at large with a 4-4-0 start (2022-23), a 5-5-0 start (2018-19), and a 4-3-1 start (2016-17). They've also failed to advance with an 9-2-2 start (2015-16, and they were up to 11-2-2 before the wheels came off the bus that year) and a 9-1-0 start (2021-22).

In general I think getting through the first third of the season at .500 or above is kind of fine for Cornell in terms of the ratings math. More wins makes the at large chase easier, of course, but ultimately playing .500 hockey for a third of the season isn't a death knell, just as playing lights out for a third of the season isn't enough to secure a bid.

Notably the 9-1 start in 2021-22 included three 3x3 OT wins which were then weighted as 55% of a normal win. So it was really a 6-1-3 start.

Thanks, I wondered about that - I figured there was some weirdness because a true 9-1 start would need a monumental collapse and that wasn't so apparent in the season record.

The other big miss season, however - they lost something like 8 in row between January and February. Yikes.

Quote from: Dafatone on November 12, 2025, 03:39:02 PM

Quote from: BearLover on November 12, 2025, 03:19:58 PMCornell needs to win at least 3 of its next 4 to have a realistic shot at an at-large bid. I doubt Dartmouth is actually very good so that will not remain a "good loss."

Hoping for some good crowds, don't know if they sold more season ticket packages after earlier reports of underwhelming sales...

And we have officially hit "it's too early for that" season.

But it's never too early for silly historical stats!

Fun fact, within the last 10 years Cornell has advanced to the NCAAs as an at large with a 4-4-0 start (2022-23), a 5-5-0 start (2018-19), and a 4-3-1 start (2016-17). They've also failed to advance with an 9-2-2 start (2015-16, and they were up to 11-2-2 before the wheels came off the bus that year) and a 9-1-0 start (2021-22).

In general I think getting through the first third of the season at .500 or above is kind of fine for Cornell in terms of the ratings math. More wins makes the at large chase easier, of course, but ultimately playing .500 hockey for a third of the season isn't a death knell, just as playing lights out for a third of the season isn't enough to secure a bid.

Quote from: stereaxI just want some good ass hockey, man. And hope. And I think Casey should give us both.

Same same same.

Quote from: BearLoverI'm not even convinced yet he's a great coach—I mean, he probably is a good coach, but what basis do we have? A slightly over .500 record in 12 years at Clarkson?

I admit I don't understand how to evaluate college hockey records with all the OT/SOL point BS from the past several seasons, but FWIW Casey's record on CHN is listed as 234-185-56 for a .552 win percentage.

Keith Allain was 282-254-54 (.524) at Yale.
Schafer was 561-300-117 (.633) at Cornell.

I think there's really no doubt that Casey Jones is at least a good coach, and probably an excellent one. I'm also inclined to think that if Allain was capable of leading a team to a national title Jones is too, although for a good coach in the Ivies I suspect that's mostly a function of luck.

Whether or not he's a good fit for the Cornell HC position remains to be seen, but there's no real reason to think he isn't.

There is also no real reason to think he'll be as consistently successful as Schafer was. Nothing against Jones, Schafer was just a truly remarkable coach.

Quote from: Al DeFlorio

Quote from: George64Finally, some good news!  Will Professor Steve Strogatz do for math what Carl Sagan did for science?

Can't access the Times, but Strogatz co-authored a brilliant piece of instructional software for differential equations that was sold by Addison-Wesley back in the 90s.

I read a few of his Times columns years ago, they made some fairly complex stuff readily accessible.

Had I known about this software when I was in college my life might be very different, but I didn't and neither did the guy teaching math 213 at the time. I nearly flunked the class and had to alter my major, and it all worked out for the best.

Quote from: stereax

Quote from: arugulaTop pair guy on a very good team. Excellent.

Robertson replacement?

Sure looks that way.

Out of curiosity, anybody know if Wolfenberg was healthy the last half of the season? My vague memory is he left the lineup after an injury and never made it back but I wasn't paying much attention to lineups between February and Placid.

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: abmarks

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: George64

Quote from: billhowardBuczek seems a coach others would want to lure away. A WAG would be that he might stay in Ithaca for a salary package in the $200K-$250K and maybe bonus money: win Ivy RS, win ILT, winning 1-4 rounds of the NCAA tournament. Some of this might want to be alumni-funded.

Other estimates?

Universities usually draw down about 5 percent of the endowment principal to fund a position. So, to pay Buczek $200k per year, plus benefits of say $40k, would mean the Richard M. Moran Head Coach endowment would need $4.8 million on hand.  Certainly possible.  More than s few lax players end up on Wall Street.

I feel like we need to do a better job fundraising if we're losing lacrosse coaches to Johns Hopkins.

Historically speaking, Hopkins is by far the more prestigious lax program.  Coaches don't leave Hopkins to come to Cornell, but they do go the other way.

Not "by far." Cornell is a lacrosse blue blood, easily one of the top 10 historical lacrosse programs, and has been competitive for a national title almost every season the past 25 years. Hopkins is a top 5 all time program more prestigious, but not so much more prestigious that we should be losing coaches to them. Anyway, the point is if we ponied up the money to pay coaches then we wouldn't be losing them to Hopkins.

Lacrosse is to Hopkins as hockey is to NoDak, so it really is something special over there, so when coaches leave almost any job for Hopkins I doubt money is the dominant consideration (and it would not at all surprise me if Hopkins paid at or near top of band regardless). As it happens Hopkins has hired its last two coaches (Pietramala and Milliman) from Cornell, so folks around here are maybe a bit more sensitive to the comparisons between the programs. FWIW I suspect that neither of those cases was about either money or prestige, really - Pietramala is a Hopkins alum, and Milliman was hired away after COVID cut the 2020 season short so he was choosing between coaching an elite program that would play lacrosse next season and one that wouldn't.

Buczek was an all time great at Cornell, so this is probably closer to a dream job situation for him than it was for either Pietramala or Milliman. I certainly hope so, because it seems like his tenure is off to an incredible start.

Quote from: jtwcornell91

Quote from: Tom Lento

Quote from: jtwcornell91

Quote from: Tom Lento

Quote from: Scersk '97

Quote from: Tom LentoThe QF game against a rested and frankly far better NoDak team was not close, and their only other win in the old 12 team format (2002) had them favored in the first round against a pre-ECAC Quinnipiac team. They lost the QF to a rested but not very much better UNH team that year.

Unusual strong disagree on 1997. That NoDak game was close! Were they better than us? Sure. But the only broke it open halfway into the third.

What stings about 2002 was that we could've been the last beneficiaries of the Clarkson rule, which did not happen because of another painful memory.

Memory fails me, then, I thought they broke it open in the second. I didn't actually see the game, those were radio days.

Was that the game with Eddy Skazyk warming up in the tunnel because Jason Elliott was getting shelled?

Skazyk wasn't on that team. Jean-Marc Pelletier was the backup that year.

I dug out the HOCKEY-L recap and apparently the warming up in the tunnel story was from the Lake State game in 1996, so it was Skazyk after all.

Sorry, I meant JMP was the backup for the NoDak game, not that he was the guy warming up in the tunnel. I hadn't heard that story about Skazyk!

Quote from: jtwcornell91

Quote from: Tom Lento

Quote from: Scersk '97

Quote from: Tom LentoThe QF game against a rested and frankly far better NoDak team was not close, and their only other win in the old 12 team format (2002) had them favored in the first round against a pre-ECAC Quinnipiac team. They lost the QF to a rested but not very much better UNH team that year.

Unusual strong disagree on 1997. That NoDak game was close! Were they better than us? Sure. But the only broke it open halfway into the third.

What stings about 2002 was that we could've been the last beneficiaries of the Clarkson rule, which did not happen because of another painful memory.

Memory fails me, then, I thought they broke it open in the second. I didn't actually see the game, those were radio days.

Was that the game with Eddy Skazyk warming up in the tunnel because Jason Elliott was getting shelled?

Skazyk wasn't on that team. Jean-Marc Pelletier was the backup that year.

Quote from: Scersk '97

Quote from: Tom LentoThe QF game against a rested and frankly far better NoDak team was not close, and their only other win in the old 12 team format (2002) had them favored in the first round against a pre-ECAC Quinnipiac team. They lost the QF to a rested but not very much better UNH team that year.

Unusual strong disagree on 1997. That NoDak game was close! Were they better than us? Sure. But the only broke it open halfway into the third.

What stings about 2002 was that we could've been the last beneficiaries of the Clarkson rule, which did not happen because of another painful memory.

Memory fails me, then, I thought they broke it open in the second. I didn't actually see the game, those were radio days.

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: Tom Lento

Quote from: BearLoverIn this case, I bring up our excruciating regional finals losses because I believe they demonstrate that our ability to win is capped under the current regime. Schafer was one of the best college hockey coaches of all time, but I don't see how we are going to make the frozen four adhering to the same old limitations. Some of them are out of our control: no grad students, no scholarships. But there's no Ivy League rule against carrying four goalies on the roster. There's no rule against bringing in more transfers or NIL. I don't think some of these things (especially NIL) are likely to happen, but I use them as examples of things we can do to (partially) even the playing field against the BUs and Quinnipiac's.

When I said "we need to try to win," it was clearly NOT a judgment of the current team. Instead it means: we need to go farther, within reason, to get over the hump. We shouldn't be content with no frozen fours since 2003. Other teams are doing things within the rules that Cornell is allowed to do too. Cornell isn't getting to the promised land with business as usual.

I don't know if this is by intention, but your comment here suggests you think Schafer wasn't trying to do these things, and that was somehow holding the program back. I think reasonable people can debate whether or not adding more transfers would meaningfully help Cornell - certainly there were a few impact players who went to WMU and Quinnipiac last year that were at least nominally eligible for Cornell, but I don't know that any of them would have been worth he time to pursue, or if Schafer connected with them and they just went elsewhere. Regardless, unless Schafer's on the record saying otherwise I doubt it was unwillingness to entertain transfers that was keeping Cornell off the transfer board. Rather, I suspect the main issue with the transfer portal, and why we haven't seen many guys come through it, is the same issue with recruiting at large - Cornell has limitations that don't apply to the likes of Quinnipiac and WMU. So the pool of available players isn't as big as it might seem with all the movement, and when you put filters in place around quality of play, fit with the needs of the program, interest in Cornell, and ability to get through admissions it's entirely possible a transfer every few years is about as good as it gets for us.

Now, should Jones emphasize the portal more? I have no idea. The thing about coaching is time is the enemy. You must make tradeoffs in terms of how you spend your recruiting efforts. So do you get really good at the transfer portal OR do you open up more recruiting connections to the CHL? Ideally you'd work on both, but if you have to sacrifice time building CHL connections to get a bit better at fishing in the transfer portal, is that worth the trade?

I don't know how much of not using the portal was Schafer and how much of it was structural limitations, as you say. But I think a reasonable assumption is that part of it was a coach who has been successful for 30 years wanting to continue doing things the traditional way. Also I don't think it's a huge time suck to reach out to players in the portal. Often players transfer to teams that previously recruited them, so there may already be a relationship there. Portal transfers take place over a week or two usually so it doesn't take much time away from recruiting etc.

Honestly those are pretty big assumptions. Someone said most kids in the portal already have a target team picked out. If that's true the recruiting process is more than a couple weeks of just reaching out to guys who declare intent.

Of the transfer portal guys who aren't pre-claimed, how many do we think are impact players? How many of them will have 2-3 years to contribute? How many of them can get into Cornell or have any interest in going to Ithaca? I'd wager very few, and then you're back to how you spend your time.

That said I do hope someone is reaching out to Mac Gadowski, even though it's likely hopeless.

Quote from: BearLoverIn this case, I bring up our excruciating regional finals losses because I believe they demonstrate that our ability to win is capped under the current regime. Schafer was one of the best college hockey coaches of all time, but I don't see how we are going to make the frozen four adhering to the same old limitations. Some of them are out of our control: no grad students, no scholarships. But there's no Ivy League rule against carrying four goalies on the roster. There's no rule against bringing in more transfers or NIL. I don't think some of these things (especially NIL) are likely to happen, but I use them as examples of things we can do to (partially) even the playing field against the BUs and Quinnipiac's.

When I said "we need to try to win," it was clearly NOT a judgment of the current team. Instead it means: we need to go farther, within reason, to get over the hump. We shouldn't be content with no frozen fours since 2003. Other teams are doing things within the rules that Cornell is allowed to do too. Cornell isn't getting to the promised land with business as usual.

I don't know if this is by intention, but your comment here suggests you think Schafer wasn't trying to do these things, and that was somehow holding the program back. I think reasonable people can debate whether or not adding more transfers would meaningfully help Cornell - certainly there were a few impact players who went to WMU and Quinnipiac last year that were at least nominally eligible for Cornell, but I don't know that any of them would have been worth he time to pursue, or if Schafer connected with them and they just went elsewhere. Regardless, unless Schafer's on the record saying otherwise I doubt it was unwillingness to entertain transfers that was keeping Cornell off the transfer board. Rather, I suspect the main issue with the transfer portal, and why we haven't seen many guys come through it, is the same issue with recruiting at large - Cornell has limitations that don't apply to the likes of Quinnipiac and WMU. So the pool of available players isn't as big as it might seem with all the movement, and when you put filters in place around quality of play, fit with the needs of the program, interest in Cornell, and ability to get through admissions it's entirely possible a transfer every few years is about as good as it gets for us.

Now, should Jones emphasize the portal more? I have no idea. The thing about coaching is time is the enemy. You must make tradeoffs in terms of how you spend your recruiting efforts. So do you get really good at the transfer portal OR do you open up more recruiting connections to the CHL? Ideally you'd work on both, but if you have to sacrifice time building CHL connections to get a bit better at fishing in the transfer portal, is that worth the trade?

Quote from: Tom Lento

Quote from: underskillWere we actually seeded higher in any of the regional finals besides Bemidji? Maybe Ferris State?

Two other times: 2003 (overall #1, beat BC to advance to the FF) and 2019 (Cornell and Providence both pulled first round upsets, Cornell was a 3 seed and had the white jerseys for the regional final).

Against Ferris State Cornell was a 4 seed, advancing by pulling an upset against overall #2 Michigan in the first round. Ferris lost in the finals to overall #1 BC. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_NCAA_Division_I_men%27s_ice_hockey_tournament#Regional_Final

Since I was looking at all this stuff, might as well put this here. Cornell's first round record features an incredible SEVEN upset wins. Cornell's first NCAA win under Schafer was in the 12-team era in 1997, with a 6 vs 3 seed upset over Miami. The QF game against a rested and frankly far better NoDak team was not close, and their only other win in the old 12 team format (2002) had them favored in the first round against a pre-ECAC Quinnipiac team. They lost the QF to a rested but not very much better UNH team that year.

2009, 2012, 2019, 2023, 2024, and 2025 all featured first round upset wins in the 16 team format.

Quote from: underskillWere we actually seeded higher in any of the regional finals besides Bemidji? Maybe Ferris State?

Two other times: 2003 (overall #1, beat BC to advance to the FF) and 2019 (Cornell and Providence both pulled first round upsets, Cornell was a 3 seed and had the white jerseys for the regional final).

Against Ferris State Cornell was a 4 seed, advancing by pulling an upset against overall #2 Michigan in the first round. Ferris lost in the finals to overall #1 BC. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_NCAA_Division_I_men%27s_ice_hockey_tournament#Regional_Final

Quote from: ugarte

Quote from: Tom LentoBack on topic, I don't share any of the BU animosity, I love the historical rivalry, and the Terriers are my cousin's adopted college hockey team (he went to Iowa, no alma mater to cheer for).

The point of a historical rivalry is to develop irrational animosity, Tom! And develop some hate for your cousin while your at it for not getting your back.

I know, I know, but I just can't seem to get worked up about it! Maybe it's the uniform similarity.... like BU is tricking me into not hating them. Those bastards....