Buh-bye, seniors

[adamw]

Yale, which is subject to the same Ivy limits seems to have found a very different style of play that puts them in the top of the ECAC and has qualified for the NCAA Tournament the last 2 years. They have been beating us with sticks for the last 2 years.

And your point is?  Yale is now 1-2 in the NCAAs under Allain.  Schafer is 7-8. Let's see Yale get to that before suggesting Allain's system will be superior than Cornell's in the NCAAs.  How did tonight's shellacking look for Yale's system?  When Cornell played superior opponents - very skilled - on the ROAD in 2005 and 2006, they took both to excruciating OT losses.  This was the problem with Yale's system in the NCAAs.  You're trying to run and gun with teams that are much more talented top to bottom.

[judy]

You do know that many athletes and family read this forum right? This is even worse when they had such a great season, that just didn't meet whatever expectation you had for the team.

In the future, I'll be sure to discuss any negative thoughts regarding Cornell hockey where players' families won't be reading: maybe on some forum related to knitting or motorcycles. ::smashfreak::

Knitting...? That would be ravelry, and you meet all sorts of people. We've got a hockey board, but not many college hockey fans there and mostly they're for the big M schools out west. **]

[Towerroad]

Yale, which is subject to the same Ivy limits seems to have found a very different style of play that puts them in the top of the ECAC and has qualified for the NCAA Tournament the last 2 years. They have been beating us with sticks for the last 2 years.

And your point is?  Yale is now 1-2 in the NCAAs under Allain.  Schafer is 7-8. Let's see Yale get to that before suggesting Allain's system will be superior than Cornell's in the NCAAs.  How did tonight's shellacking look for Yale's system?  When Cornell played superior opponents - very skilled - on the ROAD in 2005 and 2006, they took both to excruciating OT losses.  This was the problem with Yale's system in the NCAAs.  You're trying to run and gun with teams that are much more talented top to bottom.

The point is that there are those that claim that Schafer is doing an outstanding job operating under the Ivy constraints and that there is no other system that could replicate these results. So I wanted to point out that Yale has been doing very well of late playing a very different style of hockey. They seem to be able to attract the sort of player that others claim are not available to Ivy's. This style has been beating us with an annoying regularity over the last 2 years.

Our strong structured defensive system is vulnerable in transition which is just the sort of hockey that "Run and gun" Yale plays. Our offense is not strong enough to counter punch.

[ajh258]

I find it disheartening that we are merely satisfied with "meeting expectations" because the team should strive a lot more than that. The goal is the win the NCAA championship at the end of the year and not patting ourselves on the back for the ECAC championships. Quite frankly, winning the ECACs doesn't mean that much if we are just going to lose to HEA and CHA teams a week after. At this rate, we will be recruiting mediocre players every year and maybe get lucky with another 2003 - but that's all we're gonna get.

That said, the players this year did "meet expectations" given their circumstances. I find it hard to argue that they should have made it to the Frozen Four because it would have required them to make exceptional performances. Maybe we could have played better on Friday against UNH, but that doesn't take away from their performance throughout the season. It's just too bad that these expectations are not high enough and the Ivy League does not give a crap about NCAA titles.

[adamw]

The point is that there are those that claim that Schafer is doing an outstanding job operating under the Ivy constraints and that there is no other system that could replicate these results. So I wanted to point out that Yale has been doing very well of late playing a very different style of hockey. They seem to be able to attract the sort of player that others claim are not available to Ivy's. This style has been beating us with an annoying regularity over the last 2 years.

Our strong structured defensive system is vulnerable in transition which is just the sort of hockey that "Run and gun" Yale plays. Our offense is not strong enough to counter punch.

I disagree.  And my point is that no one else has done any better in the league with a different system.  Yale's had a good run, and no better (worse) in the NCAAs.  I certainly never said no other system could do anything ... but you can't argue that Schafer's system doesn't work.  It does.  Play any other system, and you'll get no better results.  Ultimately, any system is OK if you have good players and execute it well.  The other teams have better players.  Period.

[Tom Lento]

Yale, which is subject to the same Ivy limits seems to have found a very different style of play that puts them in the top of the ECAC and has qualified for the NCAA Tournament the last 2 years. They have been beating us with sticks for the last 2 years.

And your point is?  Yale is now 1-2 in the NCAAs under Allain.  Schafer is 7-8. Let's see Yale get to that before suggesting Allain's system will be superior than Cornell's in the NCAAs.  How did tonight's shellacking look for Yale's system?  When Cornell played superior opponents - very skilled - on the ROAD in 2005 and 2006, they took both to excruciating OT losses.  This was the problem with Yale's system in the NCAAs.  You're trying to run and gun with teams that are much more talented top to bottom.

The point is that there are those that claim that Schafer is doing an outstanding job operating under the Ivy constraints and that there is no other system that could replicate these results. So I wanted to point out that Yale has been doing very well of late playing a very different style of hockey. They seem to be able to attract the sort of player that others claim are not available to Ivy's. This style has been beating us with an annoying regularity over the last 2 years.

Our strong structured defensive system is vulnerable in transition which is just the sort of hockey that "Run and gun" Yale plays. Our offense is not strong enough to counter punch.

The head to head results have nothing to do with the style of play, they're a result of talent and execution. Yale has had the better of both against Cornell in the last two years, and yet Cornell and Yale have the same record in the NCAA tournament in that time.

If you still need more evidence, Cornell beat a run-and-gun style team in 2003. In fact, they beat 2. In a row. In the NCAA tournament. They beat them by playing the same style of hockey Cornell's been playing for the last 15 years. The first team (MSU-M) got thumped because they were basically this year's Yale team - 2 big scoring lines and no defense at all. The second was a tight game because BC was a more complete team than MSU-M.

Yale has had 2 good seasons and 1 NCAA win. They picked up some great talent up front and made a nice run that ended with 9 GA in the regional final. Why, exactly, would we choose to follow that path? It's no more successful than Cornell's current style of play, and it's never proven to be consistently successful at a national level, at least not for any ECAC school.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm all for those forwards coming to play for Cornell. I just don't think you can count on getting them on anything approaching a regular basis. In most cases the ECAC schools will get guys who are not quite as good as the guys at the top hockey programs.

[Al DeFlorio]

The point is that there are those that claim that Schafer is doing an outstanding job operating under the Ivy constraints and that there is no other system that could replicate these results. So I wanted to point out that Yale has been doing very well of late playing a very different style of hockey. They seem to be able to attract the sort of player that others claim are not available to Ivy's. This style has been beating us with an annoying regularity over the last 2 years.

Our strong structured defensive system is vulnerable in transition which is just the sort of hockey that "Run and gun" Yale plays. Our offense is not strong enough to counter punch.

I disagree.  And my point is that no one else has done any better in the league with a different system.  Yale's had a good run, and no better (worse) in the NCAAs.  I certainly never said no other system could do anything ... but you can't argue that Schafer's system doesn't work.  It does.  Play any other system, and you'll get no better results.  Ultimately, any system is OK if you have good players and execute it well.  The other teams have better players.  Period.

In his fifteen years at Cornell, Mike's teams have won the Whitelaw five times.  Only Harvard, at three, has more than half that number.  Mike's teams have had one Frozen Four appearance.  The other eleven ECAC teams have a total of two, and that includes subsequently defecting Vermont in 1996.  Mike's teams have won seven NCAA games in those fifteen years.  The other eleven ECAC schools have won a total of five.

[scoop85]

The point is that there are those that claim that Schafer is doing an outstanding job operating under the Ivy constraints and that there is no other system that could replicate these results. So I wanted to point out that Yale has been doing very well of late playing a very different style of hockey. They seem to be able to attract the sort of player that others claim are not available to Ivy's. This style has been beating us with an annoying regularity over the last 2 years.

Our strong structured defensive system is vulnerable in transition which is just the sort of hockey that "Run and gun" Yale plays. Our offense is not strong enough to counter punch.

I disagree.  And my point is that no one else has done any better in the league with a different system.  Yale's had a good run, and no better (worse) in the NCAAs.  I certainly never said no other system could do anything ... but you can't argue that Schafer's system doesn't work.  It does.  Play any other system, and you'll get no better results.  Ultimately, any system is OK if you have good players and execute it well.  The other teams have better players.  Period.

In his fifteen years at Cornell, Mike's teams have won the Whitelaw five times.  Only Harvard, at three, has more than half that number.  Mike's teams have had one Frozen Four appearance.  The other eleven ECAC teams have a total of two, and that includes subsequently defecting Vermont in 1996.  Mike's teams have won seven NCAA games in those fifteen years.  The other eleven ECAC schools have won a total of five.

That, to me, says it all.  Unless we expect a precipitous decline (and given the information out there about the next couple of recruiting classes, that seems unlikely), I don't think we have anything serious to complain about.

[ScrewBU]

Who would have thought a long outdated defensive system, an outrageously overrated goaltender, and a flaccid offense would have resulted in being bounced in the first round?  

But seriously, as long as this system is in place, we will never win a championship.  The belief that you can have 5 shots on goal in a period, get up 1-0, and ride that 40 more minutes to a win is just not going to happen.  What happens when you fall behind a couple goals?  You can't build a successful system on making sure you're always ahead, it's just not realistic.

Here's to next year when we hopefully make some progress on those fronts and the team hopefully proves me wrong.

[Jordan 04]

The belief that you can have 5 shots on goal in a period, get up 1-0, and ride that 40 more minutes to a win is just not going to happen.

Were we watching the same game?  Cornell carried the play in the 2nd period on Friday, put a lot of pressure on in the offensive zone, and had 11 shots to show for it in the period. They were certainly not playing "ride it out" hockey in that period.

What happens when you fall behind a couple goals?  

I guess you come back.

And then you do it again.

And then just for shits and giggles, you keep doing it.

And then if at that point people still believe that your team/system is dead in the water after 2 goal deficits, then I guess you just give up trying to show otherwise.

[kaelistus]

But seriously, as long as this system is in place, we will never win a championship.

Wisconsin won a championship in 2006 playing essentially the exact same system we do.

[Rosey]

But seriously, as long as this system is in place, we will never win a championship.

Wisconsin won a championship in 2006 playing essentially the exact same system we do.

2003 notwithstanding (the issues there being different from 2006's issues), this is IMO the closest Cornell has been to winning a national championship during my period as a fan.  I firmly believe that the winner of that regional was better than the other 3 teams that made the Frozen Four, and would likely have won the championship.  Wisconsin and Cornell were damned evenly matched, and it was just luck of the draw that Wisconsin scored first.

[Jim Hyla]

But seriously, as long as this system is in place, we will never win a championship.

Wisconsin won a championship in 2006 playing essentially the exact same system we do.

2003 notwithstanding (the issues there being different from 2006's issues), this is IMO the closest Cornell has been to winning a national championship during my period as a fan.  I firmly believe that the winner of that regional was better than the other 3 teams that made the Frozen Four, and would likely have won the championship.  Wisconsin and Cornell were damned evenly matched, and it was just luck of the draw that Wisconsin scored first.

60 to 40 shot differential might go against that.

[RatushnyFan]

Think "Rope-A-Dope"::thud::

[Rosey]

But seriously, as long as this system is in place, we will never win a championship.

Wisconsin won a championship in 2006 playing essentially the exact same system we do.

2003 notwithstanding (the issues there being different from 2006's issues), this is IMO the closest Cornell has been to winning a national championship during my period as a fan.  I firmly believe that the winner of that regional was better than the other 3 teams that made the Frozen Four, and would likely have won the championship.  Wisconsin and Cornell were damned evenly matched, and it was just luck of the draw that Wisconsin scored first.

60 to 40 shot differential might go against that.

I can't remember, and it's impossible to tell from the shot count, but it's possible Cornell was taking fewer low-percentage shots in the hopes of retaining possession for a better shot.  The reason I posit this is that Cornell has behaved this way a lot over the last 10-15 years.  But honestly, after 4 years my memory of the game is very fuzzy (and I missed the third overtime, anyway...)