Opinion Piece: A Little Perspective

[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.

The fact that you seem to be having trouble parsing it doesn't make it a nonsense expression.  ...  Because this strikes me as a pretty pedantic discussion, even for this forum.

First, I didn't "have trouble" parsing it. I understood it; It remains a horrible choice of words because, EVEN THOUGH I UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY INTEND, it doesn't, by itself, convey anything meaningful. I think the fact that the eminent Kyle Rose took it to be a comparison of performance to expectations as opposed to a comparison of performance this year to the performance we've become accustomed to says a lot about how poor a choice of phrase it is; that it has been used more than once by them does not strengthen the case.

Second, this isn't even in the ballpark of "too pedantic for this forum." See, e.g., 80% of what you choose to pick nits on.

[amerks127]

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.  ...  Because this strikes me as a pretty pedantic discussion, even for this forum.

First, I didn't "have trouble" parsing it. I understood it; It remains a horrible choice of words because, EVEN THOUGH I UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY INTEND, it doesn't, by itself, convey anything meaningful. I think the fact that the eminent Kyle Rose took it to be a comparison of performance to expectations as opposed to a comparison of performance this year to the performance we've become accustomed to says a lot about how poor a choice of phrase it is; that it has been used more than once by them does not strengthen the case.

Second, this isn't even in the ballpark of "too pedantic for this forum." See, e.g., 80% of what you choose to pick nits on.

Why doesn't it convey anything meaningful?  It conveys exactly what we intended it to mean.  One explanation of why student enthusiasm has waned since 2006 is that current students (born circa 1990) are less inclined to buy pricey season tickets because the team is not performing as well relative to the recent seasons (the only seasons current students know anything about outside of 1967 and 1970).  It further implies we do not think this team is mediocre, but the casual, fringe hockey fan might think it is because they expect success based on the seasons which built Cornell's reputation.

Audience is important to remember.  It may come as a ridiculous shock, but just like every column we've written, it was not intended exclusively for the die-hard eLynah fan. We wrote it for mass consumption by the average CURRENT student and Athletics employee.

[min]

Sounds like you are describing 1980.  Underperformed all year...squeaked into ECAC playoffs (when 8 out of 17 made playoffs)...Won ECAC Tourney, and lost NCAA semi-final and consolation (when NCAAs had 4 teams).

That's what I thought of, too.

But for me, that playoff run reminds me of harassing Bob Gaudet.  In Boston, he tried to wing a puck at us during warm-ups.  In Providence, he skeated over during warm-ups and asked us if we'd "give it a rest."  Definitely inside his head.

That, and the first occurrence of the "Screw BU, XXX too" version of the cheer.

I was not aware that Gaudet's douchebaggery had such a long history.

The more relevant question here is whether douchebaggery is born or learned behavior.

[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.  ...  Because this strikes me as a pretty pedantic discussion, even for this forum.

First, I didn't "have trouble" parsing it. I understood it; It remains a horrible choice of words because, EVEN THOUGH I UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY INTEND, it doesn't, by itself, convey anything meaningful. I think the fact that the eminent Kyle Rose took it to be a comparison of performance to expectations as opposed to a comparison of performance this year to the performance we've become accustomed to says a lot about how poor a choice of phrase it is; that it has been used more than once by them does not strengthen the case.

Just because you claim it doesn't convey anything meaningful doesn't make it so.  I, for one, found it to be pretty clear what it meant if you read the context.

[Jim Hyla]

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.  ...  Because this strikes me as a pretty pedantic discussion, even for this forum.

First, I didn't "have trouble" parsing it. I understood it; It remains a horrible choice of words because, EVEN THOUGH I UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY INTEND, it doesn't, by itself, convey anything meaningful. I think the fact that the eminent Kyle Rose took it to be a comparison of performance to expectations as opposed to a comparison of performance this year to the performance we've become accustomed to says a lot about how poor a choice of phrase it is; that it has been used more than once by them does not strengthen the case.

Just because you claim it doesn't convey anything meaningful doesn't make it so.  I, for one, found it to be pretty clear what it meant if you read the context.

Agree.

[Jeff Hopkins '82]

Sounds like you are describing 1980.  Underperformed all year...squeaked into ECAC playoffs (when 8 out of 17 made playoffs)...Won ECAC Tourney, and lost NCAA semi-final and consolation (when NCAAs had 4 teams).

That's what I thought of, too.

But for me, that playoff run reminds me of harassing Bob Gaudet.  In Boston, he tried to wing a puck at us during warm-ups.  In Providence, he skated over during warm-ups and asked us if we'd "give it a rest."  Definitely inside his head.

That, and the first occurrence of the "Screw BU, XXX too" version of the cheer.

I was not aware that Gaudet's douchebaggery had such a long history.

The more relevant question here is whether douchebaggery is born or learned behavior.

In the case of his son, probably both nurture and nature.  WRT the rest of the team, hopefully just nurture.  ::twitch::

[cth95]

I guess we are just fitting in with the rest of college hockey this year.  :-)

From INCH's weekly Rankings Outrage:  "It's further proof that [sic] dominant theme in college hockey this season is mediocrity."

http://insidecollegehockey.com/inch/2010/03/09/inch-first-shift-week-22/

[French Rage]

We also make the best Ice Cream in the Ivy League!

Except for that barbecue ice cream they kept trying to push on us my first couple years.

I thought that ice cream was courtesy of Sylvia's soul food restaurant in Harlem, as part of the one- or twice-a-semester guest catering of the dining halls. Nobody would eat it, but rather than dump it, Noyes trotted out the tubs of it day after day, week after week, month after month. But now that you  mentioned it, it's entirely possible that the Dairy Bar made and supplied it in conjunction with the Sylvia's themed dinner.

Either way, Sylvia's/BBQ Ice cream has been a running joke among friends and I for ~9 years now.

I thought it was the result of one of those "come up with your own flavor" contests at the Dairy Bar.  Though I do recall the Sylvia name so you may be correct.  Either way, you are right about Noyes not giving up and bringing it out again and again to no avail.  They also started cutting back on the other flavors they had to try to force us to eat it, though the hole in their logic was leaving the soft-serve machine operational.  Good to know my group isn't the only one remembering that incident.

[adamw]

OK - just another b.s. opinion ... but from my perspective, I don't think nationally people regarded this as being "the year" for Cornell, and I'm not sure where that comes from.  At least, if you define it vis-a-vis 2003.  Going into 2002-03, at least myself, personally, I had a palpable feeling that this was a Frozen Four team, and anything less was going to be an extreme disappointment. I never came close to having that feeling with this year's team.  I knew it would be good -- and perhaps it could take advantage of, yes, the relative mediocrity of the entire nation right now -- but I don't know many people outside this forum who believed Cornell was a FF favorite or anything.

To me, last year exceeded expectations. The fact that Cornell came so close to the FF is still agonizing, but I wouldn't have expected it going in. With Cornell matchup up against an inexperienced, prone-to-losing-the-big-game Northeastern team - and then after BSU knocked off Notre Dame - I looked at it as miracle of miracles that somehow Cornell would "steal" its way to the Frozen Four. Figured defeating BSU at that point was a shoo-in. It was an agonizing slap in the face that it didn't happen -- but only because so rarely are such "gift" opportunities presented to you ... not because I thought Cornell was really one of the best four teams in the country.

All that said, the points about the attendance at Lynah - and especially how it relates to basketball - are all valid. Expectations are too high, people are spoiled, the tickets are too high compared to basketball, etc..., etc... It's unfortunate, because Lynah is, consequently, going through a dip in enthusiasm - but not because the team is terrible, but due to these other factors.  And it's a shame, because, as I've said before, Cornell's recruiting advantage, as it were, is the Lynah enthusiasm - directly.

[Towerroad]

I am afraid that the above incident happened well after my time on the hill but when you are on the cutting edge of a field as important as Ice Cream there are bound to be a few casualties along the way. The price of greatness is often high.

[Jim Hyla]

OK - just another b.s. opinion ... but from my perspective, I don't think nationally people regarded this as being "the year" for Cornell, and I'm not sure where that comes from.  At least, if you define it vis-a-vis 2003.  Going into 2002-03, at least myself, personally, I had a palpable feeling that this was a Frozen Four team, and anything less was going to be an extreme disappointment. I never came close to having that feeling with this year's team.  I knew it would be good -- and perhaps it could take advantage of, yes, the relative mediocrity of the entire nation right now -- but I don't know many people outside this forum who believed Cornell was a FF favorite or anything.

To me, last year exceeded expectations. The fact that Cornell came so close to the FF is still agonizing, but I wouldn't have expected it going in. With Cornell matchup up against an inexperienced, prone-to-losing-the-big-game Northeastern team - and then after BSU knocked off Notre Dame - I looked at it as miracle of miracles that somehow Cornell would "steal" its way to the Frozen Four. Figured defeating BSU at that point was a shoo-in. It was an agonizing slap in the face that it didn't happen -- but only because so rarely are such "gift" opportunities presented to you ... not because I thought Cornell was really one of the best four teams in the country.

All that said, the points about the attendance at Lynah - and especially how it relates to basketball - are all valid. Expectations are too high, people are spoiled, the tickets are too high compared to basketball, etc..., etc... It's unfortunate, because Lynah is, consequently, going through a dip in enthusiasm - but not because the team is terrible, but due to these other factors.  And it's a shame, because, as I've said before, Cornell's recruiting advantage, as it were, is the Lynah enthusiasm - directly.

Adam, do you think national people ever think there's a year for Cornell?

I think the idea came because when both Greening and Nash came back, the feeling was they felt they could do better than last year. We had a very good core group returning and should have been better than last year. To date I don't think that has played out. They still haven't shown they can beat Yale, and if not we're never going to win an ECAC title.

[Trotsky]

I think the idea came because when both Greening and Nash came back, the feeling was they felt they could do better than last year. We had a very good core group returning and should have been better than last year. To date I don't think that has played out. They still haven't shown they can beat Yale, and if not we're never going to win an ECAC title.

It's been a long time since they had a dominant weekend-long effort, but at the same time they are almost pathologically consistent.

[scoop85]

Back from vacation, so here's my 2 cents.  When I attended Cornell from 81-85, the team had some exciting games (especially the miracle comeback against Harvard my senior year), but the team was  average record-wise (I hate to use the term "mediocre" in this thread ;-) ).   Now people are complaining about a team that finished 1-point out of first in an increasingly competitive league, a team that has a real chance to advance yet again to the NCAA's.  While there are certainly some disappointing results this year, there have been some real successes as well, and we know we have a chance to win every single night.

I think the current students and recent alumni are absolutely spoiled by the team's success over the past decade.  Anyone who even hints that Schafer isn't the right guy for this program is, frankly, nuts.  To me Schafer is the key to the program, and I have little doubt that we will continue to remain an upper-echelon ECAC team as long as he remains in charge.  If that's not enough for some people, so be it.

[adamw]

Adam, do you think national people ever think there's a year for Cornell?

True Jim - and I thought of that as I wrote it. But I guess that was my shorthand way of saying "reasonable national perspective of someone not biased for or against Cornell/ECAC" ... or maybe it was my shorthand way of saying "MY perspective"  

Greening/Nash returning was definitely big, but there were so many more pieces in place in 2003 than this team ever showed. Was Brendon Nash or Justin Krueger, as good as they are, ever going to be close to Doug Murray? Are they even as good as Mark McRae? Do the secondary lines have players as good as Shane Palahicky and Mike Knoepfli? The Abbott Brothers on a fourth line? Moulson? Hynes? Paolini?  And while Greening is as good as any player on that team, Nash has never proven to be a better player than anyone on that top line.  So many pieces were clearly in place that year - and with 60 more #$%^%$%& seconds of game time against UNH, or Mike Ayers not making a header save, we could all be reminiscing about a national title.

Don't get me wrong, by the way, we're talking about small degrees between the greatness of that team, and now. I'm not trying to denigrate this team - and with some breaks, no reason why it couldn't make the FF. I'm just saying that the palpable feeling that this was "Cornell's year" was never felt, and I for one did not have that level of expectation.

By the way - anyone who wants to get rid of Schafer, or believes a different coach would "improve" things, needs to just watch another sport.

[ajh258]

After attending all the home games and all but three away games this year, I join some of the faithful in agreeing that the team could do better under the circumstances. While it was not necessarily give a "mediocre" performance throughout the year, I definitely walked away from many weekends feeling disappointed. When this happens once or twice, it's understandable because everyone have their bad days and we can't expect a perfect weekend every time. However, when there's a repeated pattern of losing on Saturdays during the Jan-Mar. stretch and a rising popularity for basketball, it becomes very hard for me to hold back my frustrations. There are also many other reasons why one would attribute to the lack of enthusiasm this year and these reasons have been discussed on other threads earlier this year. I'm not going to repeat them, but when all of them compound onto each other, it becomes very difficult for the average student season ticket holder to be as excited about hockey.

It's within this context that criticisms arise and I hope our alumni would understand why. Ultimately, the team is going to be evaluated based on their post-season performance, and yesterday's win against Harvard restored some of the optimism I felt from the beginning of the year.