ELynah Forum

Thanks for those tried to answer my question. I'm just going to go with it being a CU cow bell. Not that it matters but I was curious.

I pick up a small cow bell at a yard sale. They guy thought it was from Stanford and that the "C" on it was for Cardinals. However by the look of it I think the "C" looks more like a Cornell "C".  Does anyone know if CU sold or gave away cow bell at sometime in the past?

Link to picture: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bHR7Fr2KURTtqPqGl8KexIqVGx8nJlTm/view?usp=drivesdk

Quote from: Jim Hyla

Quote from: MattS

Quote from: Jim Hyla

Quote from: MattSMy litmus test on Schafer or any HC or any leader is can a better one be brought in.

I agree.

QuoteThere must be a coach out there who is willing to come to CU for the pay, willing to deal with  restrictions, and can do a better job. I'm not sure who that is but other programs seem to he able to get them. Why not CU.

You go on to say Schafer should be replaced, but you don't have any idea who it should be. "There must be" isn't an answer.

A couple of years before Schafer came, many of us were hoping that we could get him. He had shown to be a good recruiter and was respected for his knowledge. Indeed he turned out to be what we needed then.

So if he needs replacing now, who is the obvious candidate? Up to now I haven't seen anyone give that name. Maybe he exists, but just saying he must, doesn't make it so.

Re-read my second paragraph.

I did. Here it is:

QuoteDisclaimer: I don't know anything about the inner workings of how HC are hired, dismissed, or paid at CU. So my statements might be unrealistic.

So, I'll agree, your statements might be unrealistic. I might even go stronger than "might", but that would just be my opinion. Like you, and I dare say everyone else who posts here, I don't know anything about those issues either. So I'm not going to say there must be another, better coach out there.

I certainly think there is a better coach out there. Mike is not the best coach in the world or even the U.S. so I do think a better coach could be found. I don't know with any authority who that person is. I do have my own ideas, I just do not know how feasible my ideas are which is why I put the disclaimer in my post and did not offer any new coach suggestions.

Quote from: Jim Hyla

Quote from: MattSMy litmus test on Schafer or any HC or any leader is can a better one be brought in.

I agree.

QuoteThere must be a coach out there who is willing to come to CU for the pay, willing to deal with  restrictions, and can do a better job. I'm not sure who that is but other programs seem to he able to get them. Why not CU.

You go on to say Schafer should be replaced, but you don't have any idea who it should be. "There must be" isn't an answer.

A couple of years before Schafer came, many of us were hoping that we could get him. He had shown to be a good recruiter and was respected for his knowledge. Indeed he turned out to be what we needed then.

So if he needs replacing now, who is the obvious candidate? Up to now I haven't seen anyone give that name. Maybe he exists, but just saying he must, doesn't make it so.

Re-read my second paragraph.

My litmus test on Schafer or any HC or any leader is can a better one be brought in? I've been a Schafer supporter but the past two seasons have for me shown he needs to go. So yes I think a better HC is out there.

Disclaimer: I don't know anything about the inner workings of how HC are hired, dismissed, or paid at CU. So my statements might be unrealistic.

At this point I think a better, younger, more in tune with the way the sport is currently and for the foreseeable future is played, needs to be brought in for CU to move forward. In my opinion the game has changed a lot in the past ~5 years. The game is moving back towards the way it was played in the '80's & early '90's. Can The System compete with that? I do not believe it can. I believe Schafer refuses to adapt with those changes in the game to the detriment of the program. He and the program have become stagnant.

CU players are too slow, cannot shoot accurately, or are "floaters". The best shot comes from a player (Hilbrich) that a gnat could knock off his feet. The best and quickest skaters are comparatively very small guys (Knisley). Draft pick players (Tschantz) are not willing to go do the dirty work. Players who are the a good mix are what is needed. They are out there and other Ivies are getting them. Why?

I believe it is because those players do not want to come play for a coach who is going to stifle their offense so that CU can win 2-1 or 1-0. With the mindset of today's youngsters I do not believe too many are interested in that.

I also believe Schafer is a poor evaluator of the way players currently should be given ice time and what combos work. This is either because the talent isn't there or he's become piss poor at it. No decent HC switches the line up as frequently as he does. Nor do they change line combos as much either. Or play their best player (Ryan) as much as he did at the end of the season. Triple shifting him at points? Playing the whole 2 minutes very soon after playing the whole 2 minutes if a PP.

Additionally all of the advanced statics have shown that dump and chase hockey isn't as effective as carrying the puck. Yet for the most Schafer refuses to change in either players he recruits or in the style of play. When he does slightly change the style of play he apparently is going to abandon it since it did not immediately yield excellent results.

There must be a coach out there who is willing to come to CU for the pay, willing to deal with Ivy restrictions, and can do a better job. I'm not sure who that is but other programs seem to he able to get them. Why not CU?

An extension of this is why Lynah is half full. I still think that winning or losing 2-1 or 1-0 is not what today's fan wants to see. They don't come to a game to watch players dump and chase, play at the boards, rarely shoot, have a slow passing PP that anyone with a decent grasp of the game could coach against.

There is a reason pretty much all sports are trying to improve scoring. It's because that is what the fans want to see. I think most young fans and many older ones, would rather see a win or a loss, at say, 6-5 than 2-1. Why? Because then they would get to be excited and cheer 5 or 6 times a game than 1 or 2. It's all about entertainment.

Unfortunately I don't see any of this happening. Nobody at CU athletics or Schafer wants to change. Unless a change in coaching style happens or a new HC is brought in, 10 years from now we are all going to be reminiscing about the glory days of CU hockey and what it was like to see it.

For the life of me I can't understand the whole defence thing on Saturday. What the hell is the point of dressing Stoick and then don't play him?

I can see (but don't agree) the whole not trusting him thing. But is he really that much worse than Ryan after he played a whole 2 min PK then is back in for the next shift after a 45 second rest?

I'm a believer that the more tired a player gets the more likely he is to get hurt. Where would the team be if Ryan was added (again) to the hurt defensive corp? I suppose stuck with Stoick who obviously a player who is slightly better than club.

Anyway, pretty decent game. Fiegl's misconduct wasn't the smartest. And the Dias penalty on that hit was BS. McCarron's tip was one of the nicest I've seen in a while. Bardreau is still playing in excellent form and I thought Knisley played well after sitting last weekend for a game. He used his speed well.

Quote from: jek86Any word on Reece Wilcox, I believe injured in the Harvard game?

Last I heard both him & P. McCarron were "close" to coming back. I think last week Schafer said that maybe one/both might play this weekend. I doubt it now but hopefully next weekend.

If Wilcox and/or P. McCarton are healthy then the team will change for the better. Any word on Fiegl?

I wish Schafer would put the Fiegl - Dias - Freschi line back together. I was surprised when he broke them up. I think it was right after what I considered their best game.

Other than that the scoring will come down to how well Bardreau, Hilbrich, Buckles play.

I wonder which ones are going to be the favorite of the Knisley, Yates, Rauter, Tiitinen group.

Quote from: Scersk '97

Quote from: MattSAlso, did I miss something with Patrick McCarron? The "McCarron will be back at all" comment leaves me puzzled.

No, I was just wondering when he would be back. He's been out three games now.

After writing what I did, I watched the Dartmouth postgame, hoping that Schafer might mention something about injuries. Indeed, Schafer said that Willcox and McCarron are at least questionable for next weekend—probably nothing long-term, but he just doesn't know exactly when either will be back.

Ok. I misread what you wrote. I thought you meant his injury was a career ending kind of thing.

Quote from: Scersk '97Even when we went down 4-0, I couldn't stop watching, since it felt like there might be a comeback. Too little too late—at least we won the third period...

Although I appreciated getting another look at Rauter, who looked pretty good out there, and I'm never bothered by Stoick at D, unlike a member or two of our "actual" top six, the injuries are starting to pile up, indeed.

Regarding the defensemen, one hopes that Willcox will be back soon, and one hopes that McCarron will be back at all. Anderson is starting to wear on me, and Wedman's just not there yet. Regardless of the mountain of minutes he plays, Ryan is taking some time to round back into form. Other teams also seem to be keying on him. I'm hoping he comes on late, perhaps when he doesn't have to babysit other D men as often. MacDonald has been nothing but a very pleasant mild surprise—I expected the D, but the O has been a nice bonus.

Regarding the forwards, I'm going to take back some of what I wrote about Bardreau recently. The last couple of games showed far more of what I expect out of him as a senior. Hilbrich and Buckles are turning into consistent scoring threats, and, considering last night, perhaps the puck should flow to Freschi much more often. I'm glad to see Kubiak back, but he needs to use his size more effectively. Weidner is starting to take control; it's great to have another dependable center beyond Bardreau. We're starting to own the dot again, and that's been an important part of our past playoff successes.

John McCarron remains the great mystery. You have to go back to Joe Devin to find a captain who had a truly great year, and I think we all know who the last truly great single captain was. Heavy is the head...

But, geez. [Old guy reference]Is McCarron perhaps our J.R. Reid?[/Old guy reference] Anyway, he needs to pick it up, and time's a-wastin'.

I think as of right now the play of MacDonald makes him the best offensive defencemen that Cornell has. I'm not sure if it's like you said teams are keying on Ryan, he is still recovering from injury, or MacDonald's play has improved that much. I don't think his play has improved enough to overtake Ryan completely but he's certainly taking control offensively when he can and he's carrying the puck into the offensive zone very well.

Also, did I miss something with Patrick McCarron? The "McCarron will be back at all" comment leaves me puzzled.

Overall I don't think CU played poorly. It wasn't as good as last night but there wasn't a large drop off.

The penalty shot was a tough goal to give up that early.

There was a few times where they really cycled well in the offensive zone and dominated the play.

Dartmouth's speed was a killer. Along with CU not stopping the outlet pass to a cherry picker at the blue line.

Maybe if CU had someone with a lethal, heck even an above average, shot things might turn out differently. Bardreau's PP goal was a laser but those are rare from anyone on this team.

I liked that Schafer pulled Gillam that early to try to win. For me it doesn't matter if the loss is by 2 or 5. I love trying to roll the dice and try to get those goals.  

Stewart looked very shaky pretty much all night. I wonder if we've seen the last of him this season?

Crowd was large but almost instantly deflated after the first goal.

Does anyone else think that lately the D is pinching a bit more? Seems like MacDonald & Anderson were doing it a bit. I know some people don't like MacDonald's play but he's turned into a steady D with some nice moves carrying the puck out of the defensive zone.

Quote from: scoop85

Quote from: MattS

Quote from: MattSCan someone explain to what the point is of dressing Stoick to play D if he's only going to take 1 shift per period? Wouldn't it be better to get Sade some game experience? Even if it's only a shift a period?

Never mind I figured it out. It was to take Fiegl's spot after he got hurt.

Or I am assuming he got hurt. He went off the ice towards the locker room and did not return.

We may have to resort to bringing guys up from the club team with the injuries piling up.

I just got a call from Schafer asking me if I had an eligibility left!

Quote from: MattSCan someone explain to what the point is of dressing Stoick to play D if he's only going to take 1 shift per period? Wouldn't it be better to get Sade some game experience? Even if it's only a shift a period?

Never mind I figured it out. It was to take Fiegl's spot after he got hurt.

Or I am assuming he got hurt. He went off the ice towards the locker room and did not return.

Can someone explain to what the point is of dressing Stoick to play D if he's only going to take 1 shift per period? Wouldn't it be better to get Sade some game experience? Even if it's only a shift a period?

So far the highlight of the night was Buckles check. Oh and the goalie change.