Why Cornell Will No Longer Dominate the ECAC

[redice]

[quote ninian '72]..... the coaching staff's ability to adapt their recruiting to take into account the likelihood of losing their most talented players early will be an important factor in the future success of the team. Another factor will be the Schafer "system" - how it adapts to fitting in players that are likely to be here only a few years and how attractive it will be to players hoping to get to the NHL and how helpful it will be in developing their skills for that level of play.  The coaching staff is surely aware of all of this, and one interesting part of watching Cornell hockey over the next few years will be to see how they adapt to the new realities. This year was pretty noticeable change of course and a start in the right direction.  Let's just see how it plays out.[/quote]

There is some truth to all of this.....But, I have to say that I'm not convinced that this "change of course" is the right direction.   With the stringent academic requirements & scholarship limitations that CU must deal with (mea culpa, grammar police), I don't see them as being able to attract the very best offensive talent.  I'm talking the true blue-chippers, here.  They will get some really good talent....But, I still believe that talent level will be a bit removed from the very best; the players who have it all.   As such, they'll be forever teasing us with a greatness that they're unlikely to achieve (Ex: coming one-goal short of the FF two years in a row).

I think they will be better served to go with the concept of playing puck control & absolutely stifling defense.  These things can be taught.  And, this coaching staff has shown that they can do that teaching well.  True offensive greatness is an instinctive talent.  The players either have it or they don't.   And, I don't believe CU can hope to get enough truly great offensive players to take them to a Natl Championship.

[ninian '72]

I agree with almost everything you say.  However, emphasizing team discipline and a system doesn't have to be restricted to a stifling, defense-first approach.  It's worked for Cornell in the past and may continue to work, with some offensive tweaking.  Over the years, I've watched other teams with more raw talent - Michigan in particular - and these teams aren't invincible.  Red Berenson gives his fast, skill-oriented forwards a lot of latitude to be creative.  They take a lot of risks that sometimes pay off, sometimes not, sometimes disastrously so.  Ohio State has had their number over the years and often keeps an extra forward back, ready to help out in the defensive end. Good coaching, discipline, and good positional play can neutralize what a team gives up in speed and skill. The big question is how long it takes new players to absorb these lessons and make the system work. This year's team seems to have been a work in progress.

[Trotsky]

[quote redice]I think they will be better served to go with the concept of playing puck control & absolutely stifling defense.  These things can be taught.  And, this coaching staff has shown that they can do that teaching well.  True offensive greatness is an instinctive talent.  The players either have it or they don't.   And, I don't believe CU can hope to get enough truly great offensive players to take them to a Natl Championship.[/quote]You need a mix of all three elements to be a national champion.  Just taking lessons from Cornell's history, the 67-70 teams had great O, D and G, and won.  The late 70's teams had great O and G, but poor D, and lost.  The early 00's teams had great D and G, and poor O, and lost.

It's true that Cornell will never parallel, say, Minnesota's lineup, where a Matt Moulson could be relegated to a role player.  But they don't need that to win the title.  They do need to land two or three outstanding offensive players within a few recruiting years of each other, to complement a solid D.  The one genuinely top-tier guy they probably must have is at G, but as we have seen, they have had no problem getting those.

The readjustment to an offensive style is inevitable given the direction of the NHL.  Unless the Devils start winning Cups again, purely defensive, system-oriented play will not attract many top quality recruits anymore.  (Aside: Thank God!)  This year's freshmen showed Cornell can recruit excellent offensive talent.  I'm sure we have more Albany and NCAA moments in our near future.

[Jim Hyla]

[quote Trotsky][quote redice]I think they will be better served to go with the concept of playing puck control & absolutely stifling defense.  These things can be taught.  And, this coaching staff has shown that they can do that teaching well.  True offensive greatness is an instinctive talent.  The players either have it or they don't.   And, I don't believe CU can hope to get enough truly great offensive players to take them to a Natl Championship.[/quote]You need a mix of all three elements to be a national champion.  Just taking lessons from Cornell's history, the 67-70 teams had great O, D and G, and won.  The late 70's teams had great O and G, but poor D, and lost.  The early 00's teams had great D and G, and poor O, and lost.

It's true that Cornell will never parallel, say, Minnesota's lineup, where a Matt Moulson could be relegated to a role player.  But they don't need that to win the title.  They do need to land two or three outstanding offensive players within a few recruiting years of each other, to complement a solid D.  The one genuinely top-tier guy they probably must have is at G, but as we have seen, they have had no problem getting those.

The readjustment to an offensive style is inevitable given the direction of the NHL.  Unless the Devils start winning Cups again, purely defensive, system-oriented play will not attract many top quality recruits anymore.  (Aside: Thank God!)  This year's freshmen showed Cornell can recruit excellent offensive talent.  I'm sure we have more Albany and NCAA moments in our near future.[/quote]

Well, I certainly like the tone of the way this thread is going. Much better than the beginning. I couldn't agree more with your post.

[French Rage]

[quote bandrews37]
Our hope should not to be simply be better than the teams in the ECAC. It should be to be better than EVERY team in college hockey. Too many are content just to finish higher than Harvard every year-and that's a dangerous mindset to be in.[/quote]

Yeah, I mean, we should realize the defensive mindset, while helping us win the ECAC, can only take us so far in the NCAAs and that we need to swtich to a more offensive system.  Too bad Schafer seems unwilling to do that.

::rolleyes::

[RichH]

One thing that I keep coming back to when thinking about this season is how tired the team looked both in the later parts of individual games and also the season.  I think I started to really pay attention to this after the game at Union, where the team couldn't hold a 3-1 3rd period lead; that's very uncharacteristic for a recent Cornell squad.  Another excellent example was the season-ending game on Saturday night.  The first half of the game featured a lot of good periods of control by CU.  By the 3rd period, Quinnipiac was in firm control of much of the play, and all the penalties and the GWG came from that.

A hallmark of the Cornell teams of the last 10 years has been great conditioning.  They would just wear the other teams out by the 3rd period, and if they had a lead, it was nearly elementary to clamp down and not even let the opponent get a sniff of an offensive chance.  I just got the feeling that this was a 1st-period team this year.  We HAD to get out to a good 1st period, becasue we didn't have much in the tank by the end.  A lot of the post-game comments (seemed to me) featured a lot of "we had a great 1st period...then yada yada yada."  

The stats seem to support that (sure, you can get stats to say anything, but I'll try to keep it simple).  Breaking out the trusty collegehockeystats.net tools, The goals broken down by period is interesting:

Scoring (Overall)  | 1st 2nd 3rd OT  TOT |
Cornell            |  34  31  25  0   90 | 
Opponents          |  25  20  32  1   78 | 
Difference         |  +9 +11  -7 -1  +12 | 

A steady decline in goals as games progressed, while opponents really made hay against us in the 3rd.  And I know that Al D. (et al.) is going to shoot me for breaking these out, but CU was 12-3-2 when scoring first, and 2-10-2 when being scored upon first.  Probably more telling:

Record leading after 2 periods: 12-0-2
Record trailing after 2 periods: 0-8-1
Record tied after 2 periods: 2-5-1

OK, so they were better than I thought at playing "lock-down with a lead" but they just didn't have the horses to make any offensive push in the 3rd period...and they played in a lot of close games.

With this team, in relying on the contributions of freshmen more than most years, that conditioning wasn't there.  These are kids who aren't used to the grind of this level.  The fast start suggested they were fresh and energetic, and then hit a wall.  One thing I've always liked about Schafer's coaching is getting his guys well conditioned in the offseason.  Now this freshman class should realize the value of taking it seriously.  I don't know if we'll see anyone go on the Tony Bergin Weight Gain Plan(tm), but to be able to climb back to the national elite, this team has to develop better endurance.

[Trotsky]

Younger players tend to have the endurance issues.  Even though they come out of leagues where they played twice as many games, the very fact of so many games means they practice much less, and their superior talent means many of coast through long stretches of play at half speed.  You often see freshmen explode on the scene in the ECAC and then disappear for the second half of the season.  Part of that is conditioning.  Part of it is being beaten the crap out of twice each week by 22- or 23-year olds who have a lot more throw weight than the beanpoles in Junior A.

It was striking to see the inconsistency of the level of effort of the team throughout the whole year.  I think your intuition is correct that much of that was hitting the conditioning wall.  An off-season should help.  An off-season after a (relatively) poor season, with so few juniors returning and thus everything depending upon the returning sophs and freshmen, should be pretty intense motivation.

[ftyuv]

[quote Trotsky]Younger players tend to have the endurance issues.[/quote]That's what she said!

(Come on, you know you were thinking it.)

[Swampy]

[quote Ice Meets Metal]The bottom line is that the  "Schaffer System" has failed because it has not adapted well to the challenges that CU is facing both internally and externally.[/quote]

[quote bandrews37]The Schafer glory years are over. The game has evolved, and he's still coaching his style of play from when he wore the Red and White. It's a shame, the players he hoodwinked into coming here deserve better.[/quote]

[quote Trotsky]This year's freshmen showed Cornell can recruit excellent offensive talent.  I'm sure we have more Albany and NCAA moments in our near future.[/quote]

Hey, I hear Schafer is playing golf with Jim Calhoun, Mike Eaves, and the other has-beens. ::drunk:: Anyone want to take bets as to which one gets back first to his sport's final/frozen four? Elite Eight? Too bad there's no NIT in hockey for all the teams waiting until next year.

[bandrews37]

[quote The Rancor][quote bandrews37]Then apparently you missed the last four games of the season, when all we were doing was dumping and chasing.
In truth, I believe that Schafer has taken this team and this school as far as he possibly can. This team was in a position to win an ivy title this season, needing just two points in the final two league games to get at least a share, and they couldn't pull it out. Is it because we weren't talanted enough? No - we were outplayed and thus outcoached in both contests. The assistant coaches are ok, but anyone who's ever talked to Schafer knows he's more phony than a $3 bill.
People on here are quick to point out our facilities as a strong point in luring top-notch recruits. Really, though, the new facilities aren't as grand as everyone makes them out to be. Sure, they're a step up over what we had, but Clarkson, Dartmouth and Quinnipiac all have a better setup, and that's just within the league. What our new facilities move us to is the middle of the national pack.
Our hope should not to be simply be better than the teams in the ECAC. It should be to be better than EVERY team in college hockey. Too many are content just to finish higher than Harvard every year-and that's a dangerous mindset to be in.
And frankly, it's funny to hear how much of an impact the fans think they have on potential recruits and on the success of the team. Does having a packed house help? Sure it does. But you can't tell me that the words the seniors speak every season about how much they will miss playing in front of the fans aren't echoed at North Dakota, Denver, Minnesota, Michigan, Michigan State, Maine, BU, BC, New Hampshire - even at other schools in the ECAC, like Clarkson and SLU.
There's nothing unique about playing at Cornell. The fans cheer the same exact cheers that every other school around the country does. The facilities are average at best. The support from the administration is also average, could be better, could be worse. The league is middle tier and plays in some of the worst venues in division one hockey. And when you lump that all in with a style of play that - if you're a top-notch offensive player - will hamper your growth and development, than the writing on the wall is clear.[/quote]

I did not see the last 4 games. 2x away games with no vidieo + no All Access for 2 home playoff games::bang:: / i live in florida = No I didnt see the last four games. Also, no indicators of that syle of play from any posters or game recaps. sooo...[/quote]Then if you didn't see the games, how can you have any type of informed opinion of how we have played when the games mattered the most? And I hope you didn't have the All Access because you were away, because it certainly was working - with score graphics and instant replay, no less.

Nothing unique about playing at Cornell?? We TOUGHT other schools those cheers! Lynah is an "old Barn" which lots of old school hockey players (and those new school guys with that mindset) like.

Tought, or taught? Appleton is an "old barn"; so is Baker Rink and Houston Field House - how's that make us unique? So just like the coach, the fans haven't evolved and/or stayed ahead of the rest of the country. Just like how everyone on here threw a shit fit about the jerseys the team wore in Florida, though at most 500 people saw the team actually wearing them in person. Did anyone care to think about what the players prefered, since they're the ones, you know, WEARING THEM? Every player I spoke with (and yes, I spoke with most of them) preferred the new uniforms, saying they were lighter and that made a difference late in the games because they weren't soaked with water and sweat. Yet because of fan backlash over them, the jerseys were banished to the back of the closet.

And how is Schafer a phoney? He's the winningest coach in Cornell history and has taken  this team to the FF not more than a few years ago and has a couple dozen former players in the Pros. That and he is a 2 time ECAC COTY. What planet are you from?

Winningest coach just means he's been here longer than anyone else has. You want to get picky? Fine - he may have the most wins in school history, he's also got the most losses. Yes, more than Brian McCutcheon, more than Dick Bertrand, more than Lou Reycroft.

Much like the goalies thread, numbers can be twisted around here to prove whatever point you want. Most wins? Meaningless stat.

I will say this about next year's team: if we can get through the summer with minimal defections (and I've been hearing as many as four may leave - to go pro or to another program - and as few as one), this team will be a lot better, only because it'll be Topher wearing the C and not Bitz.

[Al DeFlorio]

[quote bandrews37]Just like how everyone on here threw a shit fit about the jerseys the team wore in Florida, though at most 500 people saw the team actually wearing them in person. Did anyone care to think about what the players prefered, since they're the ones, you know, WEARING THEM? Every player I spoke with (and yes, I spoke with most of them) preferred the new uniforms, saying they were lighter and that made a difference late in the games because they weren't soaked with water and sweat. Yet because of fan backlash over them, the jerseys were banished to the back of the closet.[/quote]
Perhaps you can explain to us how having goofy fonts on front and back rather than the traditional and having vertical stripes on the sides rather than a horizontal stripe at the bottoms of the jerseys helped "make a difference late in the games."  I don't recall anyone objecting to the material of which the jerseys were made, only the way they were decorated.

Wait...if it's going to provoke another irrational, intemperate rant, don't bother explaining.

[Ben Rocky '04]

[quote bandrews37][/quote]  

Are you still talking?  Go away, troll.

[RichH]

[quote Ben Rocky 04][quote bandrews37][/quote]  

Are you still talking?  Go away, troll.[/quote]

Now, now.  While bandrews37's posts are somewhat caustic and unpopular, I'm not willing to label them as trolling.  I think he/she hasn't really been sniping or flaming anyone, just putting down an argument.  I'd like for all rational posters to continue to be welcome here, even if they are from an Athletics Department lackey.  ;-)

(disclaimer: don't know for sure if bandrews works in Athletics, but it's an educated guess judging from the comments made)

[Ben Rocky '04]

[quote bandrews37]The assistant coaches are ok, but anyone who's ever talked to Schafer knows he's more phony than a $3 bill.[/quote]

[quote bandrews37]There's nothing unique about playing at Cornell. The fans cheer the same exact cheers that every other school around the country does. [/quote]

Not trolling?  You sure?

[lurkering]

The assistant coaches are ok, but anyone who's ever talked to Schafer knows he's more phony than a $3 bill.

I must say that I take exception to that notion. In the recruiting process, you will find few that are as unrelenting as Brent or as "cool" with the players than Scottie. Coach Schafer is a great salesman of the program, but also an honest one. The recruits understand that what they see with Schafe is what they will get (all the players will attest as much, from Romano to Mugford to Carefoot to McKee). The staff genuinely cares about the academic progress of each player, something that in today's world of college hockey is very unique. The coaches have all the systems one could imagine for both defensive and offensive success in place, but, in the end, it really comes down to execution. That ebbs and flows with every year depending on the leadership and maturity level of the team.

There's nothing unique about playing at Cornell. The fans cheer the same exact cheers that every other school around the country does.

While that may be true to a certain extent, with cheers like Sieve, Sieve, Sieve, and others being similar across the nation, Cornell remains unique with the majority of their cheers. In this year alone, I heard cheers at the Yale and Brown games that I had not heard prior from the crowds at CC, DU, Wisky, UND, BC, BU, UMD, MTU, and UNH. Also, one impressive thing about Cornell is the relative lack of expletives from cheers. The Lynah Faithful show that you do not need to be crass (or in DU's case, overtly sexual) to provide a great home-ice advantage.

People on here are quick to point out our facilities as a strong point in luring top-notch recruits. Really, though, the new facilities aren't as grand as everyone makes them out to be. Sure, they're a step up over what we had, but Clarkson, Dartmouth and Quinnipiac all have a better setup, and that's just within the league. What our new facilities move us to is the middle of the national pack.

I think this is a case where I can understand your perspective, but I must say that Cornell has taken greatly productive strides in their upgrades. Lynah is an old facility, without a doubt, one lacking many of the bells and whistles that come with the underbody of many facilities (like large rehabbing pools, hot tubs, cold tubs, and more all in the locker room area of UND), but what Cornell sports is more than sufficient in the eyes of the recruits, and the locker room is comparable, but different than the schools mentioned above. But like you stated, the competition is stiff, and if you aren't moving forward, you are probably falling behind.

And frankly, it's funny to hear how much of an impact the fans think they have on potential recruits and on the success of the team. Does having a packed house help? Sure it does. But you can't tell me that the words the seniors speak every season about how much they will miss playing in front of the fans aren't echoed at North Dakota, Denver, Minnesota, Michigan, Michigan State, Maine, BU, BC, New Hampshire - even at other schools in the ECAC, like Clarkson and SLU.

I think you are right to a certain extent. A packed house can be an excellent help in the recruiting process, but it typically will not be a deciding factor for the majority of recruits. Places like UND, Wisky, Minnesota, and UNH, all experience great fan support as well, with an obvious disparity in attendance numbers as well. But Wisconsin typically has 2000 empty seats a game (a stat given to me by Kevin Patrick), and they also have to compete with the football, volleyball, and both basketball teams for campus attention. UND has a phenomenal venue, but the ceiling is very high, not making it as loud as some more intimate venues like UNH and Cornell. UNH has great fan support and a loud rink, but a locker room that closely resembles the old locker room in Lynah. DU, BC, CC, and BU typically experience full capacity only for rivalry games (though there are surely exceptions with seasonal differences in certain matchups that may be more enticing). Let me catch myself before I might be misunderstood for someone bashing other programs, and what they might have to offer. That is not my point at all; hardly, as each and everyone of those are tremendous programs in their own right. The point I am trying to make is that every program has its own problem or two that does not escape the recruits they bring on campus, and Cornell is not unique in that area, but neither is any other program in the nation.


I think that you have some very valid concerns, bandrews37, ones that are undoubtedly on the minds of the Big Red coaching staff much of their days. But that comes with running a program, and these are things that they are constantly trying to address in an expedited manner.