Why Cornell Will No Longer Dominate the ECAC

[cth95]

Thanks for a well-thought-out post. We may not agree on every specific, but your overall ideas are pretty similar to mine.  Particularly your closing about the effect of losing 3 key players.

[cth95]

[quote bandrews37]  

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]


Tear down Fenway!  Some of the seats have horrible sight lines, it is too small, and the seats aren't comfortable.  How will the Sox ever keep a solid fan base and draw the best free agents with that rotting hulk?  They better move it further from downtown so the parking is better, too.

[bandrews37]

[quote 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.[/quote]
Good to see there's someone halfway intelligent to have a discussion with around here.... thanks for the well thought out reply.
I wasn't comparing the atmosphere at Lynah to Appleton or Baker, merely the comment that it was an old barn, and so are the other two. Just because it's old doesn't make it special. It does get loud in there (only the two times this season when it was louder there than any other place I'd been were the end of the Harvard game and the end of the Colgate game, killing off the bs five minute penalty on Krantz). I'm just saying, the players who leave Mariucci and the Ralph echo the same comments that departing Red players do. Is it one of the best places to play around the nation? Absolutely - but the same arguement could easily be made by fans of a half dozen other schools.
I wouldn't say I wanted to raze Lynah - I just think that in 5-10 years, we're going to be behind the eight ball again in terms of facilities in the east, and then we'll be asking why we did all this now. I maintain that if you're standing still, you're moving backward, because there's others gaining ground - which may or may not be what happened this season (others gaining ground, I mean) (yes, losing three players hurt, but in the end, you're not going to win many playoff series scoring a goal a game - we made Fisher look like Ryan Miller last weekend).
Anyway, regarding Schafer... I'll agree four titles in 12 years is pretty good. His playoff record, though, is inflated over coaches in the past because of the format of the postseason. In the old days, you had to only win three games - that changed to six in Schafer's early years, then to as few again as four now. Also, the NCAA tournament was smaller back in the day. Is he probably one of the top 3 coaches in the league? Might be fair to say that. All I know is, having spoken with him, and most of his past assistants over the years, I just feel like the assistants don't nearly get the credit they deserve. They do the heavy lifting (recruiting, scouting, gameplanning), and he gets the glory - which is what happens with every team, no matter the sport, I know. But that doesn't mean I'm going to bow to the altar of Schafer. I feel like he's changed since taking us to the frozen four, and not in a good way.

[Trotsky]

[quote bandrews37]Good to see there's someone halfway intelligent to have a discussion with around here...[/quote]
Sigh.

[rstott]

If Schafer is changing our style of play, it's been a big success.  We were +21 at even strength, the best in the ECAC.  The problem season has been totally, totally special teams.  Generally there is a pretty strong correlation between even strength and special teams.  Not this year.  We were -9 on special teams, next to last after RPI.  (Clarkson was +20 ES, +15 ST, Quinnipiac +3 ES, +29 ST).  I tend to think this something of a fluke, we just didn't have the right personnel this year.  It's not like Schafer can't coach special teams, in the past when we had the right guys we did great on the power play and penalty kill (+30 in 04-05).

[Tom Lento]

[quote bandrews37]
Anyway, regarding Schafer... I'll agree four titles in 12 years is pretty good. His playoff record, though, is inflated over coaches in the past because of the format of the postseason. In the old days, you had to only win three games - that changed to six in Schafer's early years, then to as few again as four now. Also, the NCAA tournament was smaller back in the day. Is he probably one of the top 3 coaches in the league? Might be fair to say that. All I know is, having spoken with him, and most of his past assistants over the years, I just feel like the assistants don't nearly get the credit they deserve. They do the heavy lifting (recruiting, scouting, gameplanning), and he gets the glory - which is what happens with every team, no matter the sport, I know. But that doesn't mean I'm going to bow to the altar of Schafer. I feel like he's changed since taking us to the frozen four, and not in a good way.[/quote]

I may not be halfway intelligent, but the number of teams making the NCAA quarterfinals hasn't changed since they went to an 8+ team tournament, so Schafer's record of advancing that far is no less impressive. Also, you're shifting the argument - Rich was talking about winning percentage, not raw number of wins. .700+ in ECAC tournament play is .700+ in ECAC tournament play, and having to do it by way of more games doesn't make it less impressive. Yes, Schafer got there through a down cycle in ECAC history, and had a few games against lower-tier teams in the league (not so many, actually, if you look at the opponents), but .700 in the conference playoffs is pretty damn good no matter how you slice it. .500 in the NCAAs is reasonably impressive, too. It's not spectacular, but given Cornell's position in the hockey world, and considering how other ECAC teams have fared in the NCAAs over the same time period (even excluding Harvard's miserable record), Schafer's done quite well.

I agree that the assistants don't get the credit they deserve from the world at large, but the head coach does make a huge difference in recruiting and strategizing, and as you say it's not just Cornell where the quality of its assistants isn't recognized across the sporting world (although I have seen a lot of praise on this board for Cornell's assistants, and there are usually rumors about possible head coaching jobs for them, so their work does not go unnoticed).

I've already posted my thoughts on Schafer's style. I think it can still be effective, but we'll know more after next season.

[ugarte]

[quote Trotsky][quote bandrews37]Good to see there's someone halfway intelligent to have a discussion with around here...[/quote]
Sigh.[/quote]
Interesting. I would have gone with this.

[BCrespi]

[quote rstott]If Schafer is changing our style of play, it's been a big success.  We were +21 at even strength, the best in the ECAC.  The problem season has been totally, totally special teams.  Generally there is a pretty strong correlation between even strength and special teams.  Not this year.  We were -9 on special teams, next to last after RPI.  (Clarkson was +20 ES, +15 ST, Quinnipiac +3 ES, +29 ST).  I tend to think this something of a fluke, we just didn't have the right personnel this year.  It's not like Schafer can't coach special teams, in the past when we had the right guys we did great on the power play and penalty kill (+30 in 04-05).[/quote]

I think you've hit it on the head here.  It's amazing how confident I felt watching this team play 5-on-5 hockey this year.  It almost got to the point where I was scared of getting power plays, and that is pathetic.  Based on the team's even strength ability, the offensive and defensive talent is there.  I think it will come down to drilling and really being confortable/familiar with eachother in the schemes and hopefully this offseason will be well-used in that regard.

[ninian '72]

I suspect Schafer had something additional up his sleeve, but we won't get to see it this year.  The defense first approach works better on smaller rinks, but I'm eager to see what happens when the new forwards have an opportunity to play on larger western ice surfaces. Having that kind of speed in Minnesota just might have made the difference.

[KeithK]

Thanks Tom.  You've pretty much said what I've been thinking and not writing very well.

[Swampy]

[quote bandrews37]I'm just saying, the players who leave Mariucci and the Ralph echo the same comments that departing Red players do. Is it one of the best places to play around the nation? Absolutely - but the same arguement could easily be made by fans of a half dozen other schools.
[/quote]

Even in the relatively small world of college hockey, being in the top seven hardly makes us disadvantaged.