Buh-bye, seniors

[Dafatone]

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.

Wisconsin had the edge, but Elliot made that save on Bitz at the end of the 3rd that he had absolutely no right making.  Both teams could have scored a number of times, and the game could have gone either way.

[Jordan 04]

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.

Wisconsin had the edge, but Elliot made that save on Bitz at the end of the 3rd that he had absolutely no right making.  Both teams could have scored a number of times, and the game could have gone either way.

Didn't Glover ring one off the post in the 3rd OT as well?

[kaelistus]

Wisconsin had the edge, but Elliot made that save on Bitz at the end of the 3rd that he had absolutely no right making.  Both teams could have scored a number of times, and the game could have gone either way.

Exactly my recollection. Amazing game.

[ftyuv]

Both teams could have scored a number of times, and the game could have gone either way.

Not to take anything away from it, but that's almost a truism when you're more than halfway into the 3rd OT.

[madAgaskar07]

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.

Forgetting about the argument for a second, I love this post. Three great memories.

[YankeeLobo]

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.

What's the common thread in all those box scores you posted?  The opposing team only scored 2 goals each time.  2 goals isn't that much.  

Another common thread?  Cornell got knocked out the next round in all three cases.  They used up their offense coming from 2 goals behind and had nothing left for the next night.

The last noteworthy common thread?  In the three games following those you mentioned, Cornell scored a total of THREE GOALS, THREE GOALS IN THREE GAMES.  That ain't "gettin it done" in my opinion, and it speaks to Schafer's inability to recruit or coach a team that can consistently score even TWO GOALS (TWO F'ING GOALS!!!) in consecutive tournament games.  

It's a pattern and it's not changing anytime soon under this system.  If you consider a 7-8 record in the tournament a success, than yes, we've been tremendously successful coming out of a 4th rated conference.  But if you measure success by Frozen Four's and National Championships, like Schafer and his staff have promised time and time again, then it's ludicrous to accept these results.

You're not going to win NCAA Championships averaging 2 goals in the first 2 games of the regional.  Bottom line.  And, with the exception of 2003, that's all the Schafer system has been able to muster in 15 years.

[Dafatone]

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.

What's the common thread in all those box scores you posted?  The opposing team only scored 2 goals each time.  2 goals isn't that much.  

Another common thread?  Cornell got knocked out the next round in all three cases.  They used up their offense coming from 2 goals behind and had nothing left for the next night.

The last noteworthy common thread?  In the three games following those you mentioned, Cornell scored a total of THREE GOALS, THREE GOALS IN THREE GAMES.  That ain't "gettin it done" in my opinion, and it speaks to Schafer's inability to recruit or coach a team that can consistently score even TWO GOALS (TWO F'ING GOALS!!!) in consecutive tournament games.  

It's a pattern and it's not changing anytime soon under this system.  If you consider a 7-8 record in the tournament a success, than yes, we've been tremendously successful coming out of a 4th rated conference.  But if you measure success by Frozen Four's and National Championships, like Schafer and his staff have promised time and time again, then it's ludicrous to accept these results.

You're not going to win NCAA Championships averaging 2 goals in the first 2 games of the regional.  Bottom line.  And, with the exception of 2003, that's all the Schafer system has been able to muster in 15 years.

Used up our offense?  I wasn't aware that you had a set amount of offense to spread over a weekend.

And as has been pointed out (in this thread or one of the other ones) Wisconsin won it all doing exactly what we do.

[YankeeLobo]

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.

What's the common thread in all those box scores you posted?  The opposing team only scored 2 goals each time.  2 goals isn't that much.  

Another common thread?  Cornell got knocked out the next round in all three cases.  They used up their offense coming from 2 goals behind and had nothing left for the next night.

The last noteworthy common thread?  In the three games following those you mentioned, Cornell scored a total of THREE GOALS, THREE GOALS IN THREE GAMES.  That ain't "gettin it done" in my opinion, and it speaks to Schafer's inability to recruit or coach a team that can consistently score even TWO GOALS (TWO F'ING GOALS!!!) in consecutive tournament games.  

It's a pattern and it's not changing anytime soon under this system.  If you consider a 7-8 record in the tournament a success, than yes, we've been tremendously successful coming out of a 4th rated conference.  But if you measure success by Frozen Four's and National Championships, like Schafer and his staff have promised time and time again, then it's ludicrous to accept these results.

You're not going to win NCAA Championships averaging 2 goals in the first 2 games of the regional.  Bottom line.  And, with the exception of 2003, that's all the Schafer system has been able to muster in 15 years.

Used up our offense?  I wasn't aware that you had a set amount of offense to spread over a weekend.

And as has been pointed out (in this thread or one of the other ones) Wisconsin won it all doing exactly what we do.

I didn't mean 'using up our offense' literally, but this team has lacked offensive energy the night after making those come from behind wins.

All I'm saying is look at the results.  I don't think any team's goal, especially teams in the 3 top conferences, is to win their conference title.  Maybe Alabama-Huntsville's goal is to win their conference and they'll be happy just being in the tournament, but Cornell should have far loftier goals than winning the ECAC championship every year.

If we're going to be happy just getting to the NCAA tournament, what's the point?  I've said before this isn't Cornell basketball.

[Trotsky]

If we open up the offense, our admissions requirements will drop, our tuition will decrease, and we will get Minnesota's lineup every year.

Admittedly, it seems obvious after the fact.

[Jeff Hopkins '82]

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.

What's the common thread in all those box scores you posted?  The opposing team only scored 2 goals each time.  2 goals isn't that much.  

Another common thread?  Cornell got knocked out the next round in all three cases.  They used up their offense coming from 2 goals behind and had nothing left for the next night.

The last noteworthy common thread?  In the three games following those you mentioned, Cornell scored a total of THREE GOALS, THREE GOALS IN THREE GAMES.  That ain't "gettin it done" in my opinion, and it speaks to Schafer's inability to recruit or coach a team that can consistently score even TWO GOALS (TWO F'ING GOALS!!!) in consecutive tournament games.  

It's a pattern and it's not changing anytime soon under this system.  If you consider a 7-8 record in the tournament a success, than yes, we've been tremendously successful coming out of a 4th rated conference.  But if you measure success by Frozen Four's and National Championships, like Schafer and his staff have promised time and time again, then it's ludicrous to accept these results.

You're not going to win NCAA Championships averaging 2 goals in the first 2 games of the regional.  Bottom line.  And, with the exception of 2003, that's all the Schafer system has been able to muster in 15 years.

Used up our offense?  I wasn't aware that you had a set amount of offense to spread over a weekend.

And as has been pointed out (in this thread or one of the other ones) Wisconsin won it all doing exactly what we do.

Somebody must have stolen our Precious Bodily Fluids.  ::wank::

[Josh '99]

I think this is a little classless. Kick a guy when he is down.

Let's not bash the players.  Bash the coach!  the system!  This is the 3rd time Cornell's been beat in the tournament by Umile, because Umile knows how to coach these guys up to break the gimmick Cornell defensive system.  He makes it look easy, and he makes Schafer look stupid.

Even if I were inclined to argue that Umile has somehow figured out "the key" to unlocking the Schafer system*, I'm not sure how the 2002 game could be any sort of evidence about that point.  UNH was just plain a better team that year; they had the top team offense in the country, including two of the top four individual scorers in the country; they won the Hockey East regular season title (with both the most goals scored and the fewest goals allowed), and the Hockey East championship.  They had their first-round bye for a very good reason, and it was still a close game.

Also bear in mind that, per KRACH (i.e., a better ranking system than PWR), UNH should actually have been a slim favorite going into this year's game, despite the fact that Cornell was the higher seed per PWR.  So, yeah, we lost a close game that we'd probably should've won in 2003.  (To a team that had, for a second consecutive season, won the Hockey East regular season and tournament championships - that is to say, to another very good team, not to 2009-10 Clarkson or something.)  It sucked, we all know that.  Proof that Umile has figured out how to beat Schafer?  That's something of a stretch.

*  After all, if there were some magical secret to beating the Schafer system, wouldn't every other coach have watched those game tapes and beaten it the same way?

[KeithK]

Yeah, Umile has discovered the secret of convincing the refs to do a five minute replay that ends up going against Cornell. :-)

[ugarte]

I think UMILE should be fired for putting so much effort into figuring out how to beat a team that he hasn't played in the post-season in 7 years. He should be putting all of his time into reviewing tape of the CCHA, WCHA ... and AHA.

[ajh258]

Also bear in mind that, per KRACH (i.e., a better ranking system than PWR), UNH should actually have been a slim favorite going into this year's game, despite the fact that Cornell was the higher seed per PWR.

I don't think past records has much to do with Friday's game, the team we saw was much different from the team that played two weekends ago.

On the other hand, I'm not trying to jump on the bandwagon or anything, but I would like to see a change in our offensive strategy. Schafer's "system" needs the performance and cooperation of every shift and almost every man in order to work because that strategy only succeeds if the every shift applies constant pressure in the opposing side. Compared to run and gun teams, they only need a few good scorers to be on their game each night in order to put points on the board because teams will inevitably transition. Defense is just something they use to delay the other team's scoring, which UNH did because we didn't score "below expectations" that night. It takes much more discipline and consistency for Schafer's system to work and I think that's why we have those flops during the year. Teams like Yale only needs 2 or 3 of their top 6 scorers to perform each night and they will have a competitive game.

[adamw]

I think Umile should be fired for "using up all of his offense" against Cornell, and only scoring two goals the next game. ::rolleyes::

Seriously, is this conversation still taking place?   Someone gripes that Cornell's "system" makes it impossible to come back in games.  Someone quite obviously points out that Cornell came back from DOWN 2-0 in three consecutive NCAA First Round games .... and then original griper makes up cockamamie response about "using up all of the offense" .... I believe the conversation officially jumps the shark at that point.

In the words of Alan from The Hangover, you are a re-TARD.

There are 50 schools that would kill for Cornell's NCAA performance, the vast majority of which have better facilities, more money, and give scholarships.  GET. A. CLUE.