Cornell vs. Sacred Heart Postgame

[calgARI '07]

[quote Trotsky][quote calgARI '07][quote Beeeej][quote calgARI '07]Sawada says that he maybe they took Sacred Heart too lightly.  Considering they were 11-4-4 heading into the game, that is ridiculous and unacceptable.[/quote]

I think it's always ridiculous and unacceptable.  I've often wondered if Schafer has a standard "this is no pushover, you need to play like it's the national championship game" speech for before games like these, and I'm beginning to think he doesn't.[/quote]

You would think after losing to Wayne State, no speech would be necessary.[/quote]

Isn't assuming that the only reason you lost to a 11-4-4 team was your own lack of preparation the same error as assuming an 11-4-4 team is a pushover?

There are, in fact, two teams on the ice, not one team in either "normal" or "unacceptable" mode.[/quote]

No doubt about it but Cornell didn't play well and anywhere near the level they did a week ago.  There is no disputing that.  Doesn't and shouldn't matter what Sacred Heart did.

[Trotsky]

[quote calgARI '07]Doesn't and shouldn't matter what Sacred Heart did.[/quote]

Doesn't matter in what way?

It's true that Sacred Heart could play either crappy or well and Cornell could independently play crappy or well (although a good performance by an opponent will tend to make your team look worse).

But "we lost therefore we played crappy" isn't true.  Look at the Harvard-Dartmouth weekend this year.  The better team on the ice lost, both nights.  Sometimes that happens.

If having an .800 team means we are going to have to put out Suicide Watch for you guys one night in five, then something is wrong with expectations.

[calgARI '07]

[quote Trotsky][quote calgARI '07]Doesn't and shouldn't matter what Sacred Heart did.[/quote]

Doesn't matter in what way?

It's true that Sacred Heart could play either crappy or well and Cornell could independently play crappy or well (although a good performance by an opponent will tend to make your team look worse).

But "we lost therefore we played crappy" isn't true.  Look at the Harvard-Dartmouth weekend this year.  The better team on the ice lost, both nights.  Sometimes that happens.

If having an .800 team means we are going to have to put out Suicide Watch for you guys one night in five, then something is wrong with expectations.[/quote]

Cornell didn't play well on Saturday regardless of what Sacred Heart did.  I don't think many in attendance would dispute that including Schafer.  Who is on suicide watch?  They played like shit and lost to a team they should have beaten.  It happens.

[RichH]

[quote calgARI '07][quote Beeeej][quote calgARI '07]Sawada says that he maybe they took Sacred Heart too lightly.  Considering they were 11-4-4 heading into the game, that is ridiculous and unacceptable.[/quote]

I think it's always ridiculous and unacceptable.  I've often wondered if Schafer has a standard "this is no pushover, you need to play like it's the national championship game" speech for before games like these, and I'm beginning to think he doesn't.[/quote]

You would think after losing to Wayne State, no speech would be necessary.[/quote]

Quotes from last week's pregame story in the Journal:
http://www.theithacajournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007701050339

[quote Byron Bitz]"Sacred Heart is a good team. We need to make sure we are ready to play. When it comes down to March, the (NCAA) selection process, you never know what wins are going to count. You have to win your non-conference games. We are not taking this one lightly at all."[/quote]

[quote Mike Schafer]"This is a huge game for us...We need to come out and be very prepared. It is a huge game for us as far as national rankings and where we stand."[/quote]

[RichH]

I'm with Keith and Greg.  

Cornell's OOC record brings to mind all the bitching last year about how horrible it was to have a such a weak OOC schedule.  The fact that we aren't blowing these teams out justifies their place on our schedule, and certainly doesn't validate some fans' holier-than-thou "we should only be playing Minnesota and Denver each year" arguments.  

Part of it, IMO, is that these "minor conference" teams are indeed getting remarkably better compared to 5-10 years ago.  Giving the Sacred Hearts, RITs, and Niagaras of the hockey world regular experience with the Clarksons, Cornells, and BUs of the world is good for the game.  A rising tide lifts all something something.  And hey look...#2 Notre Dame fell to Robert Morris.  We aren't the only ones.

I'd rather grow all programs to be quality opponents than to have the nation split into the haves and have-nots, as has happened with I-A football (Boise St. & Rutgers excepted).

[Scersk '97]

[quote Trotsky]
Now it is possible that the "overconfidence effect" is only displayed in NC games.  But I think from the standpoint of the hard evidence above, Schafer's teams have performed fine against weaker opponents, with very few let downs.[/quote]

I haven't looked at the numbers, but I think Trotsky's informed swag that we've performed below standards chiefly vs. "weaker" non-conference opponents, especially in games over breaks, might be right on.  I think Cornell, for a variety of reasons, is a team that thrives in highly charged situations.  (See, Cornell University, unfathomably good playoff record)  In these games, motivation is clearly the issue:  no crowd, no history, little challenge.  (See Union College, Schenectady, NY)  To me, motivation in team sports arises from a complex interplay between coaches, captains, and fans.  That the fans weren't there for SH is clear; given Schafer's teams' records vs. "weaker" opponents in the regular season, I doubt the coaches were "absent."  To me, this seems like the captains' problem.

Who really knows about their individual styles, but we've had some strong captains in the past that were surely large factors in getting the team through rough patches.  Some of them were "lead by example" types (Baby), and others were probably more verbal (Chartrand).  People say that Bitz isn't a vocal guy, and that probably is having an effect on the team right now if his play is off as much as everyone says.  It's all well and good for a captain to "lead by example," but when the example isn't having a good game, neither will the team, especially when other motivating factors are absent.

[ugarte]

Anyone completely horrified by a loss to Sacred Heart should also consider the possibility that we beat UNH on the day that they played their worst hockey of the year. Maybe we didn't play up to them; maybe they played down to us.

I think we have a borderline tournament team - I am reasonably content with that, given the age of our team and uncertainty in net. We can beat anyone if the circumstances are right but we also have to accept that we will lose to teams we should beat some nights. Probably far more often than anyone under 25 is used to. A loss isn't necessarily because of a lack of heart from the players or motivation from the coaches or Pizza Hut in Potsdam. Some nights one team flat outplays the other one and intangibles aren't factors. This is very likely to happen when the teams aren't nearly as far apart as some people think.

[KeithK]

[quote Trotsky]Now it is possible that the "overconfidence effect" is only displayed in NC games.  But I think from the standpoint of the hard evidence above, Schafer's teams have performed fine against weaker opponents, with very few let downs.[/quote]I'd expect that any "overconfidence effect" would manifest itself more in non-conf games.  It's a lot easier to get up for a team that you play twice every year.  You know the opponent, maybe have a couple little grudges against them.  You can directly see the effects of the game on the league standings (PWR impacts are much less concrete).

I was just throwing this out as a possibility though. The real answer may be what RichH mentions - the AH and CHA teams are simply better than they were a few years ago.

[Trotsky]

[quote KeithK]The real answer may be what RichH mentions - the AH and CHA teams are simply better than they were a few years ago.[/quote]

Should be easy to look up.  Are the "minor conferences" trending up against the "majors" (and the ECAC, the only "mid-major" ::whistle:: ) in inter-conference play?

BTW, if we are just going to lose to our unranked NC opponents anyway due to lack of intensity, then that speaks in support of the argument that we should schedule the previous season's Frozen Four in NC play every year.  Even travel to them.  Skating at Minnesota or Wisconsin ought to focus the mind.  And that would be one hell of a roadie. ::drive::

[theforgottencowbell]

[quote calgARI '07]No doubt about it but Cornell didn't play well and anywhere near the level they did a week ago.  There is no disputing that.  Doesn't and shouldn't matter what Sacred Heart did.[/quote]

Not to complain, but Ari, you didn't play me well either, in either the 2nd or 3rd period.

Was it because you were out of practice from not having me last week in Estero?

[calgARI '07]

[quote theforgottencowbell][quote calgARI '07]No doubt about it but Cornell didn't play well and anywhere near the level they did a week ago.  There is no disputing that.  Doesn't and shouldn't matter what Sacred Heart did.[/quote]

Not to complain, but Ari, you didn't play me well either, in either the 2nd or 3rd period.

Was it because you were out of practice from not having me last week in Estero?[/quote]

I didn't play you in the third period.  Nobody was clapping when I did in the second period.  The lack of beat threw me off a bit but I still thought it was pretty good.

[Jacob '06]

[quote Trotsky] Even travel to them.  Skating at Minnesota or Wisconsin ought to focus the mind.  And that would be one hell of a roadie. ::drive::[/quote]

Been there, done those. Those are certainly both some pretty looooong road trips.

[SteadyBeat]

Ummm shouldn't the crowd be getting the beat from you and not the other way around?

perhaps this can help

www.metronomeonline.com

[Drew]

[quote ebilmes]I agree with the comment about playing down (or up) to the level of our opponents. It seemed like we played the same way last year, when we played down to the level of opponents like Niagara and up to the level of opponents like CC and Wisconsin. This year, we're playing down to the level of Wayne State and Sacred Heart and up to the level of UNH. It's frustrating that while we can always seem to play at a high enough level to compete with any team on the schedule, we can never seem to play well enough to dominate the teams we should defeat handily. It's been great to see exciting wins over Sucks and UNH this year, but you question why we keep losing to Sacred Heart and Wayne State.[/quote]
     Now I know it may not be cool for me to jump in here while you guys are bantering back and forth about your team,  but the last four years of my schools limited success has put things in a different perspective for me.
     How do you know your team played up to CC and Wisconsin's level and they didn't play down to yours? No doubt, Wayne State and Sacred Heart say they played up to your level, not you down to theirs.
     When you are used to a certain level of success you hold your team and your division to a "certain standard", it is easier to admit that Cornell/ Clarkson had an off day, as opposed to admitting the "shit bag" CHA or Niagara/Sacred Heart have improved.
Perspective.
Think about it, it is the same thing we accuse the WCHA of doing to us.

[carlspackler]

[quote calgARI '07][quote theforgottencowbell][quote calgARI '07]No doubt about it but Cornell didn't play well and anywhere near the level they did a week ago.  There is no disputing that.  Doesn't and shouldn't matter what Sacred Heart did.[/quote]

Not to complain, but Ari, you didn't play me well either, in either the 2nd or 3rd period.

Was it because you were out of practice from not having me last week in Estero?[/quote]

I didn't play you in the third period.  Nobody was clapping when I did in the second period.  The lack of beat threw me off a bit but I still thought it was pretty good.[/quote]
If pretty good means really sucks, then I agree!