Opinion Piece: A Little Perspective

[CowbellGuy]

Sure, based on what we saw last year and who was returning, I don't think this year's results met with anyone's expectations, and I never suggested they did. But despite that, they're far from mediocre, relative or otherwise, and it just goes back to my point of people being spoiled around here.

[Rosey]

Sure, based on what we saw last year and who was returning, I don't think this year's results met with anyone's expectations, and I never suggested they did.

So you agree with me, then.  I'm glad we got this straightened out.  Next. :-)

[Jeff Hopkins '82]

Let's not get hung up on semantics, people.  

The bottom line is we expected this team to be a lot better than they've currently demonstrated.  There are games they've lost or tied that given the talent on this team they were expected to win.  Are we being greedy?  Sure we are, but that's what you get with raised expectations.  Schafer set the bar.  We're simply holding him to it.

And regarding the lack of sellouts, IMO, Athletics clearly has priced themselves out of the market.  When men's hockey is the only game in town, you might get away with overpriced tickets.  However, when you can get your entertainment for free especially with a more mainstream sport, all of a sudden you've got competition for the student dollar (as it were).  It seems to me, that Athletics doesn't get that.

[ugarte]

I have no problem with people being disappointed. I am disappointed (though I also thought the expectations were exaggerated).

[CowbellGuy]

I don't really think it's about semantics at all. Finishing first or second in the league isn't "mediocre" in anyone's book. It's a quantitative measurement of success. Now, if you take issue with how they got there and have unreasonable expectations for what a mid-caliber Ivy with unfavorable financial packages can achieve, I can't really help you. But they are definitely different issues.

[RichH]

Yes, but by that metric, every team outside of 2003 would be "relatively mediocre" at best.

False.  I would not characterize 2005 or 2006 this way, either: in both years I thought the team outperformed expectations.

Mediocrity is not based on your expectations for a team; it is based on the quality of the team itself. So 2005 and 2006 were "relatively" mediocre, as compared to 2003. For that matter, Cornell 2003 was "relatively" mediocre as compared to Minnesota 2003. That's why the expression is so useless.

Sorry about spreading this over three responses. I blame Kyle.

2006 is a perfect example. Coming off a run where the team was 1 OT goal from the FF, the expectations were up again. The team finished 3rd in the league, 1 point out of 1st. They squeaked past Clarkson in a QF series that featured two 2OT games and wound up getting demolished in the ECAC Final (won't say to whom).  Woe was the forum then...what happened? How are we not moving forward, etc. They managed to get an at-large bid to the NCAA, thanks to a win over a strong Colgate team in the SF. Then McKee put the team on his back, threw up 7 straight scoreless periods in Green Bay, and suddenly the season was a "hold your heads high, boys, you done good." success.  

One or two strong weekends in the playoffs can completely turn the perception of a season.

[Rosey]

They managed to get an at-large bid to the NCAA, thanks to a win over a strong Colgate team in the SF.

I think your recollection is faulty: that year we weren't worried about getting a bid, but rather whether we would be sent west (again) or not.  There wasn't much question about Cornell getting a bid in the first place.

[RichH]

They managed to get an at-large bid to the NCAA, thanks to a win over a strong Colgate team in the SF.

I think your recollection is faulty: that year we weren't worried about getting a bid, but rather whether we would be sent west (again) or not.  There wasn't much question about Cornell getting a bid in the first place.

Perhaps, but there was definitely a "sky is falling" feeling after the ECAC final. Now we point to that season as the #2 highlight of the decade.

[Jim Hyla]

Let's not get hung up on semantics, people.  

The bottom line is we expected this team to be a lot better than they've currently demonstrated.  There are games they've lost or tied that given the talent on this team they were expected to win.  Are we being greedy?  Sure we are, but that's what you get with raised expectations.  Schafer set the bar.  We're simply holding him to it.

Totally agree. We are arguing whether this team, which most of us agree has been under expectations, is relatively mediocre or under expectations. How silly. If they want to define this as RM, I'm tired of writing it already, so be it. It doesn't mean they are not enjoying the year, it doesn't mean they don't support the team, it's just a phrase they used, and will probably not use again. I'd go back to the headlines of the articles mentioned previously, and ask yourself whether you agree with those. If you do, as I do, then so be it; use whatever language you want, you're saying the sme thing.

[Jordan 04]

I don't understand how all these judgments are being made as to whether or not this team has or has not met expectations. They haven't even yet played a game that matters with respect to meeting expectations.

Sorry Jordan, but this is the dumbest thing I've seen posted to this thread yet.  Just because Cornell can still win out and make the NCAA's doesn't mean they haven't squandered opportunities to solidify a spot.

Fair enough, but we end up in the same place: if we don't make the tournament, the team has not met expectations. All I'm saying is that outcome hasn't yet been decided.

[Al DeFlorio]

I remember the 1970 team.  I saw every home game, their wins in the ECAC tournament when Hughes had a last minute goal waved off only to score the winner seconds later.  And at Lake Placid where they held Michigan Tech shotless in the last period of the semi and Danny Lodboa got a true hat trick to beat Clarkson for the title.  (Maybe my memory isn't perfect, but that's how I recall it.)

Close, but not "perfect."  Cornell played Wisconsin in the semifinal.

[Josh '99]

I don't understand how all these judgments are being made as to whether or not this team has or has not met expectations. They haven't even yet played a game that matters with respect to meeting expectations.

Sorry Jordan, but this is the dumbest thing I've seen posted to this thread yet.  Just because Cornell can still win out and make the NCAA's doesn't mean they haven't squandered opportunities to solidify a spot.

Not to mention that "just barely qualifying for the tournament" is itself below expectations.

I agree with Jordan here.  If the team goes on a torrid run and wins their next eight games, nobody is going to say that they in any way didn't meet expectations because the NCAA seeding wasn't what it might potentially have been with more RS wins or because Yale won the Cleary Spittoon.  

They've "squandered opportunities to solidify a spot" in the NCAA, yes, but that's not really the same thing.

[Josh '99]

It goes without saying, but much credit should be given to Schafer for his success over the last 14 years and his ability to keep the team towards the top of the ECAC and on the national radar. Saying that this season isn't as great as 2003's is a fact, and not some dig at the coach. Nor does making that comparison reveal some appalling lack of appreciation for how bad we were before Schafer arrived, or some misguided notion that the team didn't stop winning between 1970 and 1996. But this year's team has certainly failed to meet expectations so far, and is certainly a step down from what we saw in 2003 and 2005.

This captures my opinion perfectly and distinguishes between "mediocrity" and "relative mediocrity" perfectly.

To me the difference between "mediocrity" and "relative mediocrity" is that "relative mediocrity" is a nonsense expression. It evokes nothing except mediocrity.

I understand that "relative" is a way of distinguishing this season from actual mediocre seasons but the article wasn't comparing the team to mediocre teams from the past; it was comparing it to GOOD teams from the past. Instead of directly comparing 09-10 to the best teams of the decade, it circuitously compares them to the Skazyk era. Since it is clear that the point wasn't to call a team that finished one point out of a regular season title and on the bubble of an NCAA at-large bid "mediocre" it was a poor choice of phrase.

The fact that you seem to be having trouble parsing it doesn't make it a nonsense expression.  It seems pretty clear that when Elie used the phrase in this post from a few weeks ago, and, previously, when Mitchell used the same term in this Daily Sun article from about two years ago, they were referring to mediocrity relative to the dual contexts of A) the heights reached between 2002 and 2006, and B) the unprecedented success of the men's basketball team (which has a huge advantage in competing for student attendance in that it's free).  And they're not complaining about the team's performance any case, they're just pointing out (in both cases) that it might play a role in attendance and the atmosphere at hockey games.  

Does anyone think they're actually wrong (i.e., that the hockey team's performance, or, more precisely, the perception of the hockey team's performance) might play a role in attendance, or are we just complaining about the particular phrasing they've chosen to use?  Because this strikes me as a pretty pedantic discussion, even for this forum.

[Jim Hyla]

I don't understand how all these judgments are being made as to whether or not this team has or has not met expectations. They haven't even yet played a game that matters with respect to meeting expectations.

Sorry Jordan, but this is the dumbest thing I've seen posted to this thread yet.  Just because Cornell can still win out and make the NCAA's doesn't mean they haven't squandered opportunities to solidify a spot.

Not to mention that "just barely qualifying for the tournament" is itself below expectations.

I agree with Jordan here.  If the team goes on a torrid run and wins their next eight games, nobody is going to say that they in any way didn't meet expectations because the NCAA seeding wasn't what it might potentially have been with more RS wins or because Yale won the Cleary Spittoon.  

They've "squandered opportunities to solidify a spot" in the NCAA, yes, but that's not really the same thing.

The if is the important variable. What most are talking about is what has happened so far. I think this has been a good week weather wise, if the sun doesn't come up tomorrow then it will change my opinion of the week. If the team puts it all together and wins the NCAAs, then it's been a great year. Right now I'm disappointed.

[Josh '99]

I don't understand how all these judgments are being made as to whether or not this team has or has not met expectations. They haven't even yet played a game that matters with respect to meeting expectations.

Sorry Jordan, but this is the dumbest thing I've seen posted to this thread yet.  Just because Cornell can still win out and make the NCAA's doesn't mean they haven't squandered opportunities to solidify a spot.

Not to mention that "just barely qualifying for the tournament" is itself below expectations.

I agree with Jordan here.  If the team goes on a torrid run and wins their next eight games, nobody is going to say that they in any way didn't meet expectations because the NCAA seeding wasn't what it might potentially have been with more RS wins or because Yale won the Cleary Spittoon.  

They've "squandered opportunities to solidify a spot" in the NCAA, yes, but that's not really the same thing.

The if is the important variable. What most are talking about is what has happened so far. I think this has been a good week weather wise, if the sun doesn't come up tomorrow then it will change my opinion of the week. If the team puts it all together and wins the NCAAs, then it's been a great year. Right now I'm disappointed.

OK, but I think the point is, all the things that will determine whether you're ultimately disappointed or not haven't happened yet.  If the team was 29-0-0 right now then you'd be feeling pretty good at the moment, but if they got swept next weekend in the ECAC QF and lost in the first round of the NCAAs, you'd probably ultimately be quite disappointed; conversely, if they were 10-17-2 right now, you wouldn't be thrilled with how the season had gone thus far, but if they then won the ECAC tournament, got the autobid, and made it to the Frozen Four before getting knocked out of the NCAA Tournament, you'd probably ultimately be pretty happy.  In either case, it's just too soon to make any kind of a postseason assessment about what kind of a year it was, and I think that holds true now as well.