Why Cornell Will No Longer Dominate the ECAC

[bandrews37]

[quote 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.[/quote]
I wouldn't say I've said anything all that irrational - just stepping away from being a fanboy and taking an objective look at the team for a change, that's all.
Personally, Al, I don't care if they come out looking like a damn candy cane. If the players have a preference to them, then that's what I want them to wear. Because without the players, there's no team. To me, that's the one thing that I feel gets forgotten on here.

And RichH, thanks for understanding I am not trolling, but merely expressing my opinions based on following the team and college hockey in general. And no, I'm not an Athletics lackey - like you, I'm a fan who cares as much about the program as anyone else (only I'm a bit more concerned about the direction of the program than others).

[RichH]

[quote bandrews37] 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.

snip

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.[/quote]

Good point about the home players.  But you really want to compare playing/spectating in Lynah Rink vs. playing in Baker??  Absurd.  I reject your argument that a game at Lynah is no different than anywhere else.  And it's not just CU players and fans saying things:


[Q]
"We're excited to play in a facility with the character of Lynah. We've played there before, and it's always a great experience...I truly believe that Lynah is one of the best places to play college hockey, so we are looking forward to it."
--Quinnipiac coach Rand Pecknold, Cornell Daily Sun, 3/9/07
http://www.cornellsun.com/node/22025


"However, I think that while there is unique quaintness to the rinks of the league (none with a better atmosphere that Lynah Rink at Cornell), many players who have Ivy or ECACHL options played elsewhere because of the facilities."
--Dave Starman, CSTV, March 1, 2007
http://www.cstv.com/sports/m-hockey/stories/030107aaf.html


"I joke that I have a March time share there given our recent history, but there really isn't much to hate about Lynah Rink. The atmosphere is something I wish we could replicate at Cheel, but, the buildings are so much different structurally that it would be impossible. I just get a real charge out of how in to it the crowd is, much like Kansas University's Allen Field House in basketball. Don't get me wrong, Cheel is beautiful in so many ways, and not just broadcasting view and facilities, but everywhere. Lynah just, in my opinion, has it all."
--Bob Ahlfeld (Clarkson broadcaster), Clarkson Hockey Fans interview, 7/18/06
http://clarksonhockeyfans.blogspot.com/2006/07/interview-with-bob-ahlfeld.html

"THE RINK:  Dave made an interesting point to me about Lynah Rink: the combination of its small size and rabid fans just might make for the biggest home ice advantage in college hockey, since all that noise is packed in by the small building. It's similar in a lot of ways to Walter Brown Arena at BU (although I think the layout of Lynah is far superior). However, unlike BU, Cornell doesn't have to compete with opponents whose facilities are far superior, and also has an Ivy League degree to offer. Honestly, while I do think that there are better buildings - physically - in the ECACHL (Dartmouth and Yale come to mind immediately), the atmosphere at Lynah is unmatched in the league."
--Elliot Olshansky, CSTV blog - February 18, 2006
http://slog.cstv.com/rinkrat/2006/02/far_above_cayugas_waters_there_1.html

"Let's face it: Bright Hockey Center should be renamed Bright Reading Center. It's as quiet as a library on Friday and Saturday nights.  On the other hand, what's not to love about Lynah's electric atmosphere. Even people who've never been there before are looking forward to it. 'I've never been there or played there, but it's all I hear about,' said Harvard freshman Dylan Reese. 'I hear it's one of the best places in college hockey to play, and in the world, frankly. I'm excited.'"
--Jon Paul Morosi, Harvard Crimson, 12/5/03
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=356641

"In fact, a case can be made that no Division I fans influence the game-time atmosphere as much as the Lynah Rink faithful do."
--Hockey East Commissioner Joe Bertagna, USCHO column, 1/28/03
http://www.uscho.com/news/id,6012/OnTraditionsOldandNew.html

"Absolutely best integration of fans to players in college hockey...What they do after the last home game, where they stay with the band and then mix with the players, is unlike anyplace else."
--Hockey commentator Bob Norton, same Bertagna article

"Few Eastern schools have anything like North Dakota's new Engelstad Arena, with its marble Sioux head. But Hagwell was willing to rate the Cornell crowd at Lynah Rink with any in the nation."
--USCHO.com town meeting report, 4/5/02
http://www.uscho.com/news/id,4383/DIHeadsDiscussStateOfGameAtUSCHOcomTownMeeting.html
[/Q]

This with just a few minutes of searching.  There are hundreds of similar quotes from opponents, coaches, and media.  Your opinion of the quality of the facilities seems to be valid, and on par with the rest of the East.  But I strongly disagree with your assertion that hockey games at Cornell have fallen behind the rest of the nation in atmosphere, noise, and fun.  There are probably only about 4-5 places in the nation that rival them.

I know you wanted to raze the place and get a state-of-the-art palace built somewhere away from campus, but my opinion holds for Lynah as it did for the new basketball facility that CornellFan brought up in the "other sports" forum.

[quote bandrews37]Much like the goalies thread, numbers can be twisted around here to prove whatever point you want. Most wins? Meaningless stat.[/quote]

Agreed in this context.  I like to go by winning %, where coach Schafer ranks #3 in school history (.636).  However, it's his post-season records that get my attention.  ECAC: 30-12-2 (.705) and NCAA: 6-6 (.500).  And 4 league championships in 12 years.  I think it's quite impressive.  True, he doesn't have the NCAA title yet, and he may never get it, but no current ECAC coach can claim as much success, and I can't think of anyone who I'm confident could be more successful with our recruiting & academic advantages/disadvantages at this place and time.

[KeithK]

[quote bandrews37]
I wouldn't say I've said anything all that irrational - just stepping away from being a fanboy and taking an objective look at the team for a change, that's all.
...
And RichH, thanks for understanding I am not trolling, but merely expressing my opinions based on following the team and college hockey in general. And no, I'm not an Athletics lackey - like you, I'm a fan who cares as much about the program as anyone else (only I'm a bit more concerned about the direction of the program than others).[/quote]
No you're not being irrational, just pessimistic.  You're looking at a season that was less successful than some of us have come to expect from Cornell hockey and extrapolating the total decline of the program.  This is unjustified in my opinion.  You're looking at a short stretch of games with negative results and concluding that Schafer is no longer a capable coach and asd a result the program is going nowhere with him.  That seems unreasonable to me.

Let me change that.  From your comments it seems like you decided long ago that you don't like Schafer as a coach and are just using the playoff results, etc. to back up your opinion.  You're entitled to that opinion.

[ftyuv]

I think there is a good deal of discussion to be had about Schafer, though, and I'm interested in hearing from veterans of the Faithful more experienced than I a bit more about this.

As many of pointed out, there's not much doubt that Schafer is willing to adapt to make us a faster, more offense-driven team.  My question is, can he do it?  I've only been watching for a couple years, so to me Cornell is defensive.  This year was obviously an intersection of rebuilding and restructuring, so flux is only natural and we can't extrapolate much from it.  But judging from the few games I've seen, and game threads, it sounds like we haven't really changed our strategy.  For instance, our powerplay still sounds like a defense-centric PP -- move the puck on the outside, hope for the one-timer from the blueline.  I don't think I've seen or heard much in the way of crashing down and creating on-the-fly advantages down low, which would seem to me the kind of powerplay an offensively-minded team would lean towards.

I'm not saying we should get rid of Schafer, but I think it's worth considering whether he is really doing us a service by trying to move the team in a direction he may not be able to handle.  If we recruit small and fast but coach big and stingy, it could leave us in a damaging no-man's land.

[KeithK]

[quote ftyuv]I'm not saying we should get rid of Schafer, but I think it's worth considering whether he is really doing us a service by trying to move the team in a direction he may not be able to handle.  If we recruit small and fast but coach big and stingy, it could leave us in a damaging no-man's land.[/quote]
It may be worth considering at some point, but we don't have nearly enough data to say whether he can or can't handle it.  One rebuilding season doesn't tell the story.

Just because you have more faster, smaller skill players doesn't mean that we will or should suddenly play a wide open WCHA game.  Defense is still extremely important and you want to convince the players to play a two way game.  It may be a harder sell to a kid with more offensive talent as opposed to a big guy who's always worked in the corners.  But that's where smart recruiting comes in.  Cornell probably shouldn't recruit a kid who is unwilling to play defense, even if he can fly and score.  Or at least not very many such players.

[Trotsky]

If we win the QF series, this entire thread doesn't happen.

[mtmack25]

[quote ftyuv]  I don't think I've seen or heard much in the way of crashing down and creating on-the-fly advantages down low...[/quote]

Actually, this is exactly what I see happening.  It did not happen over night, and it is still pretty ugly, but the PP has changed.  I noticed after the break that the normal cycle and shoot had been adjusted to get Bitz moving down low and open up McCutcheon on the backside with both Sawada and Bitz in rebound position.  I think McCutcheon scored on this at 'Gate, but I can't remember or check right now(TWCNY has both 'gate games on demand for free, ch.577).  Since then, it has looked more creative, although at times not very pretty.  With Romano, Scott, Nash, Gallagher and  McCutcheon (I think this was the line) on a PP against Q, they did a good job of moving the puck and finding openings, except for ones on the way to the net.  

I think that the PP might have come together with more consistent lines.  I don't think I saw the same PPer's together in any 2 games down the stretch.(I only saw home games)

Btw, I know that some recent shifts did resemble the traditional PP, but there has been an effort to change.

[edit ch. 577]

[ugarte]

[quote Trotsky]If we win the QF series, this entire thread doesn't happen.[/quote]
Meh. If we lose in the semis it happens next week. There are people who had an axe to grind.

[min]

[quote ftyuv]

I'm not saying we should get rid of Schafer, but I think it's worth considering whether he is really doing us a service by trying to move the team in a direction he may not be able to handle.  If we recruit small and fast but coach big and stingy, it could leave us in a damaging no-man's land.[/quote]

At various junctures during the season, I also casually wondered whether the coaches were up to task with the different style of play. I was thinking along the lines of, why not hire a more offensive-minded assistant coach who either played or specialized in such a system? Here, of course, I am not trying to get coach Garrow or Brekke fired; these two are likely to be the unsung and under-appreciated members of the team. But having a coach who is familiar with where coach Schafer wants to take the team should help, either in real-game situations or in recruiting.

Or maybe Joe can help, in addition to everything that he has done for Cornell hockey already...

[ugarte]

[quote ftyuv]I'm not saying we should get rid of Schafer, but I think it's worth considering whether he is really doing us a service by trying to move the team in a direction he may not be able to handle.  If we recruit small and fast but coach big and stingy, it could leave us in a damaging no-man's land.[/quote]

I think the problem isn't just "rebuilding year" but also "transition year." I don't think it fair to assume that Schafer can't coach offense. Now that the holdovers from the defense-first era are graduating, the transition to a high-scoring offense can be completed.

The returning juniors, Topher, Sawada and Krantz^* are all skilled offensive players as much as (if not more than) defense-first guys. When they get to skate with the offensive-minded classes of '10 and '11^** we'll see whether the staff can coach a high-scoring squad.

* Does anyone know what Fontas will bring to the table?
** I don't even know where to fold the class of '09 into this analysis.

[ftyuv]

[quote min][quote ftyuv]

I'm not saying we should get rid of Schafer, but I think it's worth considering whether he is really doing us a service by trying to move the team in a direction he may not be able to handle.  If we recruit small and fast but coach big and stingy, it could leave us in a damaging no-man's land.[/quote]

At various junctures during the season, I also casually wondered whether the coaches were up to task with the different style of play. I was thinking along the lines of, why not hire a more offensive-minded assistant coach who either played or specialized in such a system? Here, of course, I am not trying to get coach Garrow or Brekke fired; these two are likely to be the unsung and under-appreciated members of the team. But having a coach who is familiar with where coach Schafer wants to take the team should help, either in real-game situations or in recruiting.[/quote]That's about the level that I've thought it out, too.  And KeithK, just to be clear, I wasn't saying that I've drawn any conclusions -- just that I think it's worth keeping the question in the back of our minds.  Would I have not posted that if we'd had a great season?  Probably -- because that question would have been answered.  Our mediocre season doesn't mean that the question is answered against the coach, but it does mean (to me) that the question's still open.


I'm also of the opinion that a good mind is good at methods, not just individual skills.  Maybe all Schafer needs is to do more research into this new style and how to coach it (something I would guess/hope he's doing already).  This is a transition for him too, and we should of course give him a couple years to adjust his style.  But we should just be aware that the possibility is there that he's just not the coach for a fast, offensive team.  This is especially pertinent now that it's our off-season and we need something to bicker about other than whether Clarkson is evil or merely villainous.

[KeithK]

Yep, I got that you were just asking the question.  It's worth thinking about as long as we're not quick to jump to conclusions.

[Trotsky]

I'm not objective, there's no way I can see Schafer as incapable of anything short on walking of water, and there have been times...

Here are some things to ponder, too:

Ron Mason, Michigan State

1990 35-7-3
1991 17-18-5
1992 26-10-8

Jerry York, BC

2001 33-8-2
2002 18-18-2
2003 24-11-4

Jack Parker, BU

1998 28-8-2
1999 14-20-3
2000 25-10-7
2001 14-20-3
2002 25-10-3

Losing three guys to the pros can cause a program to wobble.  It doesn't mean anything about the coaching.

[Jordan 04]

Looks a lot like Schafer '03, '04, '05, '06, don't it?

[Tom Lento]

I'm not 100% convinced that Schafer is changing Cornell's style of play, which is what everyone seems to believe is happening. I see him changing his recruiting style, and I believe that if necessary he'll shift Cornell's style of play. It's not actually necessary yet.

The style of play that made Cornell successful was a style ideally suited to the big, physical players that Cornell brought in with the class of 2003, but it wasn't fundamentally different from the style of play Cornell used through the late 90s. Schafer hockey, which he's made Cornell hockey, is predicated on stifling, physical defense which starts with puck possession in the *offensive* zone. The forecheck is a critical part of the equation, but it's not the only way to maintain puck possession - if Cornell has forwards who can keep the puck pinned in the offensive zone, whether by taking possession and maintaining control (current smaller frosh and soph forwards) or winning physical battles along the boards and laying big, physical hits on the opposition (previous years, and even now guys like Sawada fit this description), the fundamental premise of Schafer's coaching system isn't likely to change.

I don't see Cornell becoming a coast-to-coast style team. I don't know if Schafer can become an offensive-minded coach, but I don't think it's necessary. It was clear that only occasionally can a team built solely around defense and special teams advance deep in the NCAAs. 2003 was the chance for that model to win a national title, and they didn't catch enough breaks against UNH to even get to the finals, where they would have been underdogs to a more talented and well-coached Minnesota team. I believe Schafer is merely recruiting more talented offensive forwards because 1) the recent success of the program makes it possible for Cornell to win those recruiting battles and 2) with some more offensive talent Cornell can put up the 3+ goals per game necessary to make that defensively oriented team a genuine threat to win an NCAA title. I'd be surprised if there weren't some gritty, physical forwards amongst the next two sets of recruits.

Schafer wants a national title. He's making adjustments to his basic strategy in order to achieve that goal. I don't think Cornell is transitioning to a radically different style of play. You might see more creativity through the neutral zone and in the offensive zone than you've seen in the past, but you won't see the team move away from its basic defensive mindset, and you won't see too many offense-only forwards.

As for special teams, I hope they'll get away from the umbrella as a power play set, or at least focus on moving the puck down low more. The umbrella  was amazingly effective in 2002-2003 because it had exactly the right mix of players to make it work - a PP quaterback with soft hands, good vision, and a huge shot (Murray); two guys up high with solid shots, good passing ability, excellent decisionmaking, and the ability to pinch and create chances down low (Baby and McRae); a small, agile, tough forward who could open up the ice down low and work in the corners and behind the net (Vesce); and an immovable object in front of the net with excellent hands and a knack for key deflections, who could also work down low and in the corners with Vesce and McRae (Paolini).

Cornell hasn't had that mix since 2003. The recent successful seasons on the PP were something of a mirage - the PP was getting progressively less effective as time wore on, and success was largely driven by the average quality of the opposition. Even the successful units were vulnerable to aggressive penalty kills which pressured the top of the umbrella. The predictable, uninspiring PP of this year was simply an indication that the personnel had changed to the point where the PP set couldn't really be saved.

I've also noticed the effort to work more down low on the PP, although I haven't been able to watch that many games this spring. I've been seeing more weak side movement and cross-ice passes. That'll help a lot, as it opens up the ice for the PP. Sometime in the middle of next season there's a good chance the PP will start clicking, much as the umbrella started clicking in 2002. If that happens, and if they get the PK to stop sending everyone down low after the puck (I can't tell you how many times I saw 3 white jerseys in the corner on the penalty kill), Cornell's special teams could be right back up near the top of the NCAA as soon as next season.

There are certainly reasons to be upset with the way this year went for Cornell, but there are also a lot of reasons to be optimistic. Assuming no major injuries or defections to the pros - and I'm not expecting any of the latter - If Cornell finishes in the middle of the ECAC and fails to make any noise in the playoffs, then you should start seriously wondering if Schafer can make the necessary adjustments to keep Cornell near the top of the league. For now, it's worth idly considering, but I'd hardly call this season anything other than playing to expectations. With O'Byrne, Pokulok, and McKee, this team is completely different, and a 4th place finish would be a major disappointment.