UHN Pregame Thread (RIT and Denver too)

[YankeeLobo]

You make some good points Tom, you really do.  I just feel like Schafer has discovered a way to GAME the system, i.e. the system that college hockey rules allow, to recruit a bunch of big, slow bodies, that can shut down most ECAC teams, but in the long run really don't have a chance of winning a national championship.  Aside from 2003, there hasn't been a single Cornell team that I really thought looked like a team that could compete for the championship.  It's almost like he's gotten so comfortable with his system that there's no other way to build a team and year after year, we get the same boring style that competes in ECAC competition, but gets knocked out in the tournament when we run into a team that has superior offensive players. You need offense too, and I don't think Schafer's style will ever attract the types of players you need to win it all.  Maybe I'm just greedy and want more than is possible for an ivy league hockey program, but I'm not willing to accept first and 2nd round exits every year.

[gored]

I guess the point here is that Schafer may not have won an NCAA title, but it is very hard to so that. Even Michigan hasn't won in more than a decade.  I have watching Cornell hockey for well over 20 years.  I realize we have a proud tradition and that our system isn't perfect, but the results under Schafer are WAY better than the previous two regimes.  We are at least good on a consistent basis. Today's performance was dismal, but I have faith that we will be strong for years to come.

[Jordan 04]

Seriously. How can one person be so bad at posting.

Hey Jordan, if you're such a hockey expert, read what I wrote here and tell me this isn't true.  

Every point you made could be the truth. It still wouldn't change my (also true) point.

[Tom Lento]

You make some good points Tom, you really do.  I just feel like Schafer has discovered a way to GAME the system, i.e. the system that college hockey rules allow, to recruit a bunch of big, slow bodies, that can shut down most ECAC teams, but in the long run really don't have a chance of winning a national championship.  Aside from 2003, there hasn't been a single Cornell team that I really thought looked like a team that could compete for the championship.  It's almost like he's gotten so comfortable with his system that there's no other way to build a team and year after year, we get the same boring style that competes in ECAC competition, but gets knocked out in the tournament when we run into a team that has superior offensive players. You need offense too, and I don't think Schafer's style will ever attract the types of players you need to win it all.  Maybe I'm just greedy and want more than is possible for an ivy league hockey program, but I'm not willing to accept first and 2nd round exits every year.

That's why I say you should watch BU, Michigan, or Minnesota. Apart from a couple of rare exceptions, those players you want don't play in the ECAC. It's not just Cornell, and it isn't the system. Schafer could try to be like Yale, or Clarkson, or Harvard, and go with their more offensively-minded approach to the game. Take a look at their post-season records since 1995, and be glad we've got a coach who understands how to compete. Getting the offensive stars who weren't quite good enough to be on the top 2 lines at the top programs is a recipe for consistent national failure - in fact it's the *definition* of building a team that can compete in the ECAC but not the NCAA. Getting the defensively oriented guys who are overlooked by the top programs and building a team that's consistently competitive in the league and making the NCAAs more often than not is a recipe for occasional national success, but the key word there is occasional. I'm glad Schafer goes with the latter plan - at least Cornell can compete for a title every now and again.

I also think everyone makes too much of Schafer's "system" - it's a left wing lock. It's been in hockey for a very long time. It's a basic plan for setting up a forecheck/backcheck and establishing defensive responsibility. The penalty kill is a standard set, and I don't think I need to tell you that the powerplay is dead simple. There's nothing particularly special about Schafer's system beyond the fact that it works for Cornell, and anyone who thinks another coach won't be playing some "system" has never played organized team sports at anything beyond the middle school level.

The grand irony is everyone talks about this defensive system that clogs up the lanes with big slow players in the neutral zone, but Cornell's success is actually predicated on *offensive* zone possession and, more generally, on beating the other team to the puck. It's as basic and fundamental as hockey gets. The reason the 2003 team was so good was not because they were big and stopped up the neutral zone - it's because they cycled the puck relentlessly and wore down the opposition, because they moved the puck better on the power play and breakout than any Cornell team I've ever seen, and because they may have been positionally better - especially when attacking the puck along the boards and in the corners - than any college hockey team I've ever seen. The reason this year's team was such a Jekyll/Hyde unit was because they didn't move the puck all that well, they had a hard time establishing that cycle, and they got caught out of position in the offensive zone a little too often. When they got that cycle going they were tough to beat for anybody, but they couldn't sustain it often enough against the better teams.

Schafer is successful in part because he teaches his players how to move their feet and position themselves effectively, and because he recruits the guys with the size, awareness, positioning, and - yes - speed to execute. The fact that it doesn't require as much speed as a system predicated on speed and creativity in open ice doesn't mean it's fundamentally broken, but it does mean Cornell can compete for a different set of recruits than the ones snapped up by the Minnesotas and BUs of the world. Over the last 10 years Schafer's teams have also blocked shots as well as any team I've seen, and they do it year in and year out. All of this tells me that his success is built on teaching his team to do the little things right and take care of the details (and the big athletic goaltenders don't hurt). That's one sign of a good coach, and given his record he's not a guy you kick to the curb in the vain hope of finding someone who can somehow convince kids getting full rides at North Dakota to come play in Ithaca.

Frankly I think we should be satisfied with what we've got right now and enjoy the ride, because we may never see this kind of success again. College hockey is a growing sport. The more it grows, the more big schools start programs, the less competitive the ECAC and Ivy League will get on the national stage.

That said, let's hope like hell for a few more teams like the 2003 squad - if we get enough seasons like that we're bound to see a national title eventually.

[srg1]

As a 1996 graduate, I have seen how bad the program can be.  The program can be a total failure without the right coach.

I believe Schafer tried to change up the system one year and move to a faster, smaller lineup.  Didn't he recruit the Justin Milo/Tony Romano class with this in mind?  And it didn't work out.  I feel like he has had to rebuild after that year.  This year's team overachieved and part of the issue is that the ECAC just isn't very good.  I didn't follow very closely this year but it seemed like the defense was simply better than the offense and the power play was not impressive.  Schafer has had teams with lethal power play units.  But he needs more snipers (Matt Moulson anyone?) to make it work.  Schafer does the job year in/year out and people are now spoiled.  We are lucky to have him.

[HockeyMan]

As we all know, and as the three Red coaches note proudly in interviews every chance they get, the Schafer system begins and ends with defense. The mantra: take care of things in your own zone and good things will follow at the other end.  That's fine, and indeed unassailable on some level. But what the coaches don't say is that it's a system that depends on superior goaltending, and on eking out close wins in low-scoring games.  The margins are very tight.  If your goalie is having an off night, and if your (already limited) offense is sputtering, you're in trouble.  

This team accomplished a lot this season, but I saw tonight what I also saw against NoDak (notwithstanding the Game 1 win) and against BU (even with the tie) and against Yale: that CU lacks scoring punch and is vulnerable against fast teams that dominate the neutral zone.  True, in a one-off playoff game anything can happen, and the Red could ride a hot goaltender and some lucky bounces all the way to the Frozen Four and beyond.  I think this is what Lobo means when he says that Schafer has gamed the system--such an approach would never work if playoff college hockey consisted of best-of-seven series where might generally wins out.  But even in college hockey it's a risky approach.  This team just doesn't have that extra gear that the best clubs have.  

Maybe that's too much to ask for, and we should be, as Tom Lento says, "satisfied with what we've got right now."  A fair point.  But that doesn't make the complaint any less valid.

[Tom Lento]

As we all know, and as the three Red coaches note proudly in interviews every chance they get, the Schafer system begins and ends with defense. The mantra: take care of things in your own zone and good things will follow at the other end.  That's fine, and indeed unassailable on some level. But what the coaches don't say is that it's a system that depends on superior goaltending, and on eking out close wins in low-scoring games.  The margins are very tight.  If your goalie is having an off night, and if your (already limited) offense is sputtering, you're in trouble.  

No no no no no. A thousand times no. Everything you claim the "coaches don't say" is flat wrong. It's a system that depends on footwork, positioning, beating the other team to the puck, and maintaining possession in the offensive zone. If you fail to maintain possession in the offensive zone, you have superior defensive zone play and excellent goaltending to fall back on, so you always keep the games close and you can eke out wins even when you're not executing in the offensive end or when you're just getting beat by superior talent. The failings of recent teams have not been the system, which is why I think a lot of the complaints are invalid - they're based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what Cornell (men's) hockey has been about for the past 15 years.

You, and others complaining about the system and clamoring for these mythical "faster skill players" who will suddenly materialize and carry Cornell to a title, are confusing a relative lack of offensive talent with a failing of the system. In 2003 Cornell had 4 d-men with excellent offensive skills in Cook, Downs, Murray, and McRae. I can't think of any blueliner on this year's team (or any Cornell team since Pokulok left) who could compare with Murray or McRae in that department, and there were maybe one or two as good as Cook and Downs. I haven't even mentioned Travis Bell yet, and he was also solid with the puck. In 2003 Cornell had 4 full lines of forwards who were positionally *amazing* at both ends of the ice, with 2 or 3 legitimately great college power forwards, not to mention a guy who was superb at putting the puck in the net from the top of the crease, a playmaker who's had a few cups of coffee in the NHL despite being 5'8" on skates, and a rookie named Matt Moulson who's got nearly 30 goals in the NHL this year. This year's team basically had one line that matched up well with the 2003 squad. Not to take anything away from this year's team, because I've been impressed with the way the third and fourth line have played, but they just didn't have the offensive depth of the 2003 team.

The system in 2003 wasn't any different than it is today. It's not the system. It isn't even the recruiting, and I doubt it's the coaching. It's the fact that a team full of national championship caliber players only comes around every so often even at the top programs, and at a place like Cornell the stars align far less frequently precisely because the Big Red *can't get* top line talent. You covet Yale's forwards, but Yale can't get top line talent either, and they will never be able to consistently compete for a national title with their current approach. They will always come up against a team built just like them, but with better and faster players, and they'll lose badly because they'll have no defensive presence to fall back on when they come up against that faster team.

This team accomplished a lot this season, but I saw tonight what I also saw against NoDak (notwithstanding the Game 1 win) and against BU (even with the tie) and against Yale: that CU lacks scoring punch and is vulnerable against fast teams that dominate the neutral zone.  True, in a one-off playoff game anything can happen, and the Red could ride a hot goaltender and some lucky bounces all the way to the Frozen Four and beyond.  I think this is what Lobo means when he says that Schafer has gamed the system--such an approach would never work if playoff college hockey consisted of best-of-seven series where might generally wins out.  But even in college hockey it's a risky approach.  This team just doesn't have that extra gear that the best clubs have.  

You complain about faster, skilled teams with legitimate snipers picking Cornell apart. That's because Cornell doesn't move the puck that well and doesn't have the consistent positioning necessary to beat them to the puck along the wall or cut off their breakout while they're still deep in their own zone. It's not because Cornell is slow (although more speed always helps) and it's not because the system doesn't work. In 2003 everyone said MSU-Mankato had one of the fastest teams in the country with incredible scoring talent and two dangerous forward lines. Even Cornell fans were afraid they'd rip through Cornell's big "slow" defense, although we knew better about the slow part. The WCHA fans all said Cornell would go out and the EZAC would have a 1-and-done despite a #1 overall seed. Cornell won 5-2, and the game was never close. Those big time snipers got a few chances, but for the most part they couldn't do anything - they never got the puck out of the corner in the Cornell end, and when they did Cornell was back with numbers.

The "system" doesn't preclude good offense. It's true, Schafer doesn't require a great offense to field a competitive team, but he requires offensive presence to have consistent success against the top teams in the nation. The 2003 team had it. The 2005 team had it, but to a lesser extent, and that's the difference between the Frozen Four with an excellent shot at the title game and going out in the round of 8. The 2006 team discovered it in the post-season and lost in triple OT to Wisconsin (the Badgers won the title that year, playing what amounted to Cornell hockey, but with slightly better players). This team had it in bursts, but never sustained it enough to really threaten the best teams and simply didn't have the skills on the blueline or the depth of talent at forward that you really need to be successful in the NCAA tournament.

There are flaws with Schafer's approach - personally, I think he's a little too conservative, and I think he's not creative enough with the power play strategy - but overall it works well, and when the right players come together there's an excellent shot at a title in there.

[Jim Hyla]

Well, to add a little more stats to this, rather than just loud mouthing, CHN has announced their All-CHN Teams. A first, second and rookie team gives 18 players. Guess how many ECAC players. Two and one is on RPI, that gives athletic scholarships. The other is Scrivens. So what's that tell you, other than, this league does not, and never will have the talent to compete year in and year out with the 3 other big leagues. It just ain't gonna happen, not now, not ever. So those who think we just need to get those blue chippers and go out and win a championship, well go somewhere else and spread your falsehoods.

I'm as disappointed with this team as anyone, not just the seniors, but everyone together as a unit; however I also don't think that just changing a coach will bring true happiness. If it's so easy, name me another ECAC school that is doing it. Yale might get there, but they've got to not lose to Brown to show me. They are good enough to get to the Frozen Four, and also bad enough to lose later today. They also have a huge advantage over us with their tuition structure. Princeton also has that advantage, but they're certainly not the team you want to be. Harvard is another, but I certainly don't want to take their recent record. Union is coming on strong, but I'll need to see any of these programs produce for at least 5 years before I'd say they've done it. The rest of the league is, well, the rest of the league.

ECAC schools generally compete for second and lower tier players, none are stocked with top round draft picks. It's the rare player like Riley who wants the education. We need to get the Greenings, and Moulsons, and Murrays. Put enough of them together with an excellent goalie and we have a chance. But that will only happen every few years. The other years we hope to compete for the ECAC crown, but that won't necessarily get you a Frozen Four appearance.

Having said that, I'll also reiterate that I am disappointed with this team. Not just because we didn't get to the Frozen Four, but because of our inconsistencies. Last night was a classic example, we started out like the Brown game looking terrible, got a hard working goal, and came out in the second period playing very well and hard. Then we get another delay, looking at a goal, and all hell breaks lose. In retrospect, Schafer should have taken his time out then. It became obvious we were not ready to play the rest of the second period. Once that second goal was allowed we were done. I don't think this team has that belief in itself, that they will somehow get it done. Certainly 2003 had it. Maybe instead of a new coach, we need a sports psychologist. Certainly we need some players who can consistently elevate the team when it's needed.

My only complaint with Schafer was why in the world did he take that time out. We were not playing like winners and weren't ever going to tie it up. Just like basketball, when it's obvious you are going to lose, forget about fouling.

[A-ron]

You guys know a lot more about hockey than I do considering I started following this team (and hockey) in 2000 so maybe I have no idea what I'm talking about but here's my opinion:  Seeing all of the success under Schafer is fantastic.  The problem is that Schafer is becoming a victim of his own successes.  By keeping this team at the top of ECAC and getting them into the tournament with such frequency it's no longer a tremendous a achievment for him but par for the Schafer course.  I'll be honest, just getting into a regional isn't enough for me anymore.  What can I say, Schafer's success has spoiled me.  Telling me it could be much worse doesn't make it any better.

[Jim Hyla]

You guys know a lot more about hockey than I do considering I started following this team (and hockey) in 2000 so maybe I have no idea what I'm talking about but here's my opinion:  Seeing all of the success under Schafer is fantastic.  The problem is that Schafer is becoming a victim of his own successes.  By keeping this team at the top of ECAC and getting them into the tournament with such frequency it's no longer a tremendous a achievment for him but par for the Schafer course.  I'll be honest, just getting into a regional isn't enough for me anymore.  What can I say, Schafer's success has spoiled me.  Telling me it could be much worse doesn't make it any better.

But it might give you a sense of realism.

[adamw]

I can't even believe this conversation exists.  Every other ECAC team would kill for Cornell's success, as would about 30 other NCAA teams.  It's not the '60s .... be happy with what you have.  And when you call Cornell "just a bunch of of big, slow guys" then it shows you really just aren't paying attention.

Schafer squeezes every ounce out of the program.  Saying his system doesn't work in the NCAAs is asinine.  6-2 in the first round.  Even in those games when Cornell was supposedly the favorite, because they were the higher seed, they were always doubted - their record was theoretically inflated because of the ECAC etc.... In most of those games, their KRACH rating was lower than their opponent, even if they were the higher seed.  They won those games because Schafer generally gets it done when it counts ... this year is a rarity. That's testament enough right there.

The program will regroup and reload - and be fine.  Anyone who complains about this really just has no idea how easily it could all go South without the right staff.

[Scersk '97]

It's not the mid '60s '90s... be happy with what you have.

FYP.

Bart: What the hell is this?
Lisa: It's one of those campy '70s throwbacks that appeals to Generation Xers.
Bart: We need another Vietnam to thin out their ranks a little.

Ungrateful, whining bandwagon facetimers.

In Schafer I trust, because I was there when we were at our worst.  When we start finishing last or next-to-last in the league (Roll), I'll start calling for Schafer's head.  Like that'll ever happen.

[jtwcornell91]

Wow.  I'm not going to respond to the trolls on this thread with whom I'm ashamed to be associated as a Cornell fan (if anyone believes they really are).  Instead let me make one observation related to our "system": last weekend, during a Cornell power play, I heard several fans yelling "cycle it!" and none yelling "shoot it!"  Now, those fans I'm proud to be associated with.

[Robb]

In Schafer I trust, because I was there when we were at our worst.  When we start finishing last or next-to-last in the league (Roll), I'll start calling for Schafer's head.  Like that'll ever happen.

Amen.  Lest we forget, Clarkson won an NCAA playoff game just 2 years ago.  2 years from national contender to ECAC doormat - think about that, and think about that long and hard.  Recruiting enough talent to an ECAC school and getting it to gel into a team that can even compete at the national level is HARD and Schafer is the master.  With their reputation and financial policies, Harvard should be wiping the ice with us - they should get every single player that they go after.  Instead, they just completed a 9-win season.  There but for the genius of Schafer go we.

Let's say some alum donated $5M to the coaching endowment, we fire Schafer, and go out and hire a Blasi, Blais, Jackson, or Lucia for $300k+ per year (which is what it would take).  Do you honestly think they would be able to recruit enough blue-chip first and second round NHL talent to Cornell to run and gun with the hockey factories?  I do not.  With the 29 game limit, admissions hurdles, academic rigor, isolated location, lack of TV exposure, etc, there's just no way that will happen no matter who is the coach.  Given the structure of college hockey today, Coach Schafer is exceeding what should be your wildest expectations; if you are expecting more, then you are delusional.  Period.

[jeff '84]

I can't even believe this conversation exists.  Every other ECAC team would kill for Cornell's success, as would about 30 other NCAA teams.  It's not the '60s .... be happy with what you have.  And when you call Cornell "just a bunch of of big, slow guys" then it shows you really just aren't paying attention.

Schafer squeezes every ounce out of the program.  Saying his system doesn't work in the NCAAs is asinine.  6-2 in the first round.  Even in those games when Cornell was supposedly the favorite, because they were the higher seed, they were always doubted - their record was theoretically inflated because of the ECAC etc.... In most of those games, their KRACH rating was lower than their opponent, even if they were the higher seed.  They won those games because Schafer generally gets it done when it counts ... this year is a rarity. That's testament enough right there.

The program will regroup and reload - and be fine.  Anyone who complains about this really just has no idea how easily it could all go South without the right staff.

Thank you. The voice of reason.