Opinion Piece: A Little Perspective

[Jim Hyla]

Very well said. I can't stand to read the hockey pieces in the Cornell Sun. No disrespect to the two kids who write it, but honestly, it comes across as a weekly whine about how Cornell has failed each week. I choose not to read it and I know a lot of other hockey fans who don't either because they can't stand the Chicken Little "the sky is falling" weekly rant. Let's cheer the team on and quit whining. This year's team has a great chance to make the tourney and make some noise. Let's go Red!

And no disrespect to you, but don't show your age by calling Elie and me "kids." I think it's rather ironic that someone who claims they don't read our articles then feels free to openly comment on how they come across as a weekly whine.  Please read exactly what we've written this season at http://cornellsun.com/users/mitchell-alva-and-elie-bilmes/track but please ignore the titles as the editors write them (and do read every piece).  Except for early season comments about Brendon Nash, we don't complain about the team.  We offer honest assessments, and when things go poorly as in Dartmouth a few weeks ago, we comment on its effect.  We've offered our share of compliments toward almost every player on the team as well as the traveling fan base.  Do you know we were criticized for writing that we had great expectations for the team this season because they were "stale" thoughts?

In the past, we've taken umbrage with the treatment of Cornell Athletics toward hockey fans vis a vis other sporting events.  Those articles can be found here http://cornellsun.com/node/30396 and http://cornellsun.com/node/32726.  It was in this context that the term "relative mediocrity" originated.

My apologies for calling you guys kids. I'm only '07, so I'm only a few years older. You're free to your opinions, but I'm free to disagree. I don't think your comments are insightful and I stopped reading the hockey column for the first time in 7 years after reading several of your pieces. Maybe you should reread your own articles from a more detached perspective because to me and a good portion of the Cornell hockey world, they come across as a weekly airing of grievances and complaints. Also, as you say, perhaps its the titles that set the tone for that interpretation, but articles titled "Inconstitency Plagues Mens Hockey," "Men's Hockey Has Issues, but Potential Is Evident," and "Red Still Needs to Learn to Finish" with text that reflects their titles certainly rings true to CowbellGuy's sentiment (no pun intended). Feel free to write whatever you want, but CowbellGuy is right. There's a distinctly unpleasant smell in the air of recent.

The atmosphere in Lynah has changed significantly since basketball has improved. The casual fans have stopped going to hockey in the numbers they once did even 4 years ago. Just look at the attendance numbers and the lack of sellouts. It's just my opinion, but the fanbase at Lynah used to be comprised of a more-or-less representative cross-sectional sampling of the Cornell student body. No longer is that the case. The average fan now is a hell of a lot pickier. For one, I've learned just to enjoy the ride. I'd like to see more general Cornell sports fans again instead of hyper-critical hockey-dorks (for lack of a better word). After years of being beaten down by ushers, the administration, and even some fellow fans, the Greek system has abandoned hockey in alarming numbers in favor of basketball and a lot of the fun in the atmosphere has gone with them. Again, just my 2 cents from someone who's been here for the last 7 years. I'm hardly old and hardly discussing how it was "back in the day," but I think it's becoming increasingly evident that when hockey's not the only good ticket in town, Lynah's not as fun as it was just a few years ago.

Yeah, why don't we read those titles. You know what, I think they are true, true when they were written and still true now. They are inconsistent, have potential, and still need to learn to finish. If you want to disagree with any of those, I'll gladly argue the point.

[French Rage]

However, it seems in the Cornell hockey community that the reference point for the Schafer era tends to be the 2003 season, and sometimes 2005 as well. Everyone remembers that great run to the Frozen Four; I was throwing things at the television after I came home from high school to find Cornell losing to UNH.

Wait, isn't your dad a hockey fan?  Why didn't he get you out of school that day?

[cu722001]

Michigan, Minnesota, BU, even BC are relatively mediocre this year.  In basketball, so are North Carolina, Memphis State and many others.  What of it?  That this year's team only finished second doesn't detract in the least from Cornell's enduring success under Coach Shaefer.  CU fans have high standards for sure.  For some they border on unreasonable.

Personally, I find it amazing that CU can turn out superior teams year in and year out.  CU limits its applicant pool thru academic selectivity and financial restraints.  And for all the protests to the contrary, CU is not Harvard, Yale or Princeton academically or reputaionally.  

Yale, Dartmouth, St. Lawrence all have had their moments.  But CU is always in a position to make the frozen 4, to win the ECAC and the Ivy League.  That we don't every single year doesn't indicate relative or any other form of mediocrity.

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.) And there have been great memories since, if none so bright.  Lance Nethery, Brock Tredway, all the great goalies, the OT loss to Wisonsin, and on and on.  Not at all a bad tradition or one that looks to end anytime soon.

Unfortunately, other programs aren't going to sit still and let Cornell have undefeated teams year after year. Sometimes the other guy wins. We learned that in 1971 with BU's first crop of scholarship atheletes.  After that it took a long time for CU to get its legs again.  But now that it has, talk of relative mediocrity seems as dated as the disco era to which it applied.

[KenP]

Keep in mind that 2003 was a glorious year.  Our team was the #1 team in the country!!  The game plan was simple -- get a lead, shut 'em down.  And they did both so well.  Best defense, top rated power play.  With the exception of a few agonizing minutes following the bullshit called-off goal ::cuss::, they were truly awesome.  30-5-1.

2005 was not quite as intimidating, but they played tough when they needed to and produced an amazing season.

In 2010 their record vs TUC (or any other "good team" metric) sucks.  That's either "not living to potential", "bad luck" or "less talented".  Which one is it?  Well, the record on the second night (3-6-3) was much weaker than their record on the first night (10-2-0).  Their best game of the season was against UNH, but did we see the same level of intensity again?

Perhaps we're still wearing our rose-colored glasses from last year's lacrosse team.  That team was similar to the '03 hockey team.  They were damn intimidating, they played with confidence, and win or lose you know they were going to give the proverbial 110%.  I just don't get the same warm fuzzies from this team.

[mnagowski]

And for all the protests to the contrary, CU is not Harvard, Yale or Princeton academically or reputaionally.

You're right. We're better. :-P

[Rosey]

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.

[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.

[CowbellGuy]

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

[Rosey]

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.

[ugarte]

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.

[Trotsky]

To paraphrase Battlestar Galactica, this thread has happened before, and it will happen again.

[Rosey]

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.

[ugarte]

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.

[ugarte]

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.

[Rosey]

To me the difference between "mediocrity" and "relative mediocrity" is that "relative mediocrity" is a nonsense expression.

Okay, then replace all instances with "underperforming expectations" and you will have my meaning.  Based on what Schafer has done in the past, this team with this level of talent and experience should be in the top 5 in the country and have a lock on an NCAA bid regardless of what transpires in the ECAC tournament.  That they are not says to me that they are underperforming expectations.