Thank you seniors 2010

[Jordan 04]

And yet, you know what this year's squad has that 2006's doesn't?  A championship.  So my hat is off to them.

Good thing Brown (and Sean Backman) did our dirty work for us and knocked Yale out of the ECAC playoffs before Cornell got its chance to lose to them for the Nth consecutive time.

The tournament format it pretty simple. Lose, go home. Win, play on. It's pretty low to try and detract from the team's accomplishments and championship because another team wasn't even good enough to get to the final four.

[Rosey]

The tournament format it pretty simple. Lose, go home. Win, play on. It's pretty low to try and detract from the team's accomplishments and championship because another team wasn't even good enough to get to the final four.

Being "low" or not is entirely irrelevant to my analysis of what happened. Being true or not is more to the point. Do you seriously contest it, or are you avoiding the question entirely because you are simply unwilling to critique?

I guess I just don't understand the attitude that the team is off-limits to open criticism. I'm sure Schafer is wracking his brain trying to figure out why this team was so inconsistent. I don't see what the harm is in discussing this stuff. You may not like it, but frankly I don't care.

[Jordan 04]

The tournament format it pretty simple. Lose, go home. Win, play on. It's pretty low to try and detract from the team's accomplishments and championship because another team wasn't even good enough to get to the final four.

Being "low" or not is entirely irrelevant to my analysis of what happened. Being true or not is more to the point. Do you seriously contest it, or are you avoiding the question entirely because you are simply unwilling to critique?

Unwilling as far as the Whitelaw Cup goes. There is nothing to critique with regards to winning the ECAC Championship. Cornell won it. Yale (and 10 other teams) did not.

I guess I just don't understand the attitude that the team is off-limits to open criticism. I'm sure Schafer is wracking his brain trying to figure out why this team was so inconsistent. I don't see what the harm is in discussing this stuff. You may not like it, but frankly I don't care.

Discussing the team's inconsistency is fine; but it can be done in non-douchey ways (e.g., without "Buh-bye Seniors" polls and backhanded compliments -- sans compliment, really -- about their championship). I agree the team was inconsistent at times. Perhaps they simply didn't have the talent level that allowed them to carve through the opposition; so be it. On some nights it clicks, on others it doesn't. And single-elimination tournaments only serve to magnify that. UNH has been equally inconsistent this year, but they were fortunate enough to have variance work better for them than it did for us.

On the whole, I think critique and analysis of the season is fine; but I don't think single-elimination tournament losses are cause for condemnation of a group's 4-year performance, a championship, a coach, an entire system, and an entire program.

[scoop85]

The tournament format it pretty simple. Lose, go home. Win, play on. It's pretty low to try and detract from the team's accomplishments and championship because another team wasn't even good enough to get to the final four.

Being "low" or not is entirely irrelevant to my analysis of what happened. Being true or not is more to the point. Do you seriously contest it, or are you avoiding the question entirely because you are simply unwilling to critique?

Unwilling as far as the Whitelaw Cup goes. There is nothing to critique with regards to winning the ECAC Championship. Cornell won it. Yale (and 10 other teams) did not.

I guess I just don't understand the attitude that the team is off-limits to open criticism. I'm sure Schafer is wracking his brain trying to figure out why this team was so inconsistent. I don't see what the harm is in discussing this stuff. You may not like it, but frankly I don't care.

Discussing the team's inconsistency is fine; but it can be done in non-douchey ways (e.g., without "Buh-bye Seniors" polls and backhanded compliments -- sans compliment, really -- about their championship). I agree the team was inconsistent at times. Perhaps they simply didn't have the talent level that allowed them to carve through the opposition; so be it. On some nights it clicks, on others it doesn't. And single-elimination tournaments only serve to magnify that. UNH has been equally inconsistent this year, but they were fortunate enough to have variance work better for them than it did for us.

On the whole, I think critique and analysis of the season is fine; but I don't think single-elimination tournament losses are cause for condemnation of a group's 4-year performance, a championship, a coach, an entire system, and an entire program.

Well said.  I'm all for reasoned analysis, and I've offered my share of it over the years.  The sarcasm that some folks like to spew is pretty weak from where I sit.

[Rosey]

On the whole, I think critique and analysis of the season is fine; but I don't think single-elimination tournament losses are cause for condemnation of a group's 4-year performance, a championship, a coach, an entire system, and an entire program.

As well as the president of the university, the Stonecutters, and God, right?  You may wish to direct your straw man elsewhere, because I never said such a thing.

I was very specific in my criticism, if a bit colorful in presentation: this team underperformed expectations.  As I've said elsewhere, I have no problem with Schafer or his system, nor a problem with Cornell's hockey program as a whole.  This year, however, they sucked relative to where many of us expected them to be back in October.  I, unlike most of you, have no problem saying so.

I'm sure Cornell hockey will survive this and move on (with me as an ardent fan, once I recover from the epic facepalm that was yesterday), but these seniors don't get another try at playing the kind of game I know they are capable of.

[BigRedHockeyFan]

The title of the thread is: Thank you seniors 2010

[RatushnyFan]

Best Cornell team since 2003. Congrats to a wonderful group of seniors and an incredible season.

No, that would be 2005.  Maybe 2006.  So, best Cornell team since, inarguably, 2006.

QFT.  Both 2005's and 2006's squads were better *and* more consistent than this season's.

I for one can't stand your negativity on this topic.  Most of your comments are opinions, not facts - who elected you to decide which Cornell team is best?  Everyone is entitled to their opinion but reading your piss and vinegar is annoying.  That's just an opinion by the way.

EDIT - Thank you seniors.  Best wishes in the future, on and off the ice.

[ajh258]

In the end, although there were some bad games, the highlights of this season overweighed these disappointments. All the seniors performed above expectations and gave us a season that won't be easily forgotten. Thank you.

[Rosey]

Most of your comments are opinions, not facts - who elected you to decide which Cornell team is best?

Agreed, and no one: I'm clearly expressing an opinion.  You (among others) are trying to put my statements in the worst possible light because you don't like what I'm saying.  Why not just say that and move on, instead of putting words in my mouth?

Everyone is entitled to their opinion but reading your piss and vinegar is annoying.  That's just an opinion by the way.

That's perfectly all right.  I find unconditional positivity annoying as shit.  Everyone has their pet peeves. ;-)

[Towerroad]

Kyle:

I think you are missing the point entirely. No matter how disappointed you are in the Red's performance on Friday I guarantee there  are 6 men, most of whom are not turning pro and will never play hockey at this level again, who are more disappointed. I suspect, however, that they have learned to accept victory and defeat with better grace than you have shown, that is the most important lesson in sport.

The title of this particular page is "Thank you seniors 2010". For four years these 6 men wore the red and white and did their best. Sometimes their best was spectacular (the cycling lesson in the UNH game was an example) and sometimes their best did not measure up to the competition. Regardless, I believe they tried their best and deserve our gratitude and respect. Show a little class and let the faithful thank a fine group of men. There is a time and place for analysis and discussion, you are very good at both, but this is not it. I leave you with this:

"It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat."

Theodore Roosevelt

[Rosey]

The title of this particular page is "Thank you seniors 2010".

Indeed, it was my mistake that this discussion spilled over into this particular thread.  Mea culpa.  And, now that I've calmed down a bit, I agree with many of you that the timing and phrasing of my other thread were both a bit poor.  Note to self: wait 2 days before writing post-season thoughts. ;-)

Thank you, seniors: it was a pleasure watching you skate for four years.  I will continue to wear Brendon Nash's sweater with pride.

As a final aside, it's amazing how quickly the years go by: none of this year's team played with Bitz or Moulson or the Abbott brothers or endured the 3OT loss in 2006.  Was it really that long ago?

[Rita]

The title of this particular page is "Thank you seniors 2010".

Indeed, it was my mistake that this discussion spilled over into this particular thread.  Mea culpa.  And, now that I've calmed down a bit, I agree with many of you that the timing and phrasing of my other thread were both a bit poor.  Note to self: wait 2 days before writing post-season thoughts. ;-)

Thank you, seniors: it was a pleasure watching you skate for four years.  I will continue to wear Brendon Nash's sweater with pride.

As a final aside, it's amazing how quickly the years go by: none of this year's team played with Bitz or Moulson or the Abbott brothers or endured the 3OT loss in 2006.  Was it really that long ago?

In some ways yes, and in other ways no. Boy do I miss the Abbott twins.

[Jacob 03]

If anyone's interested in how Ben Scrivens has played himself into the NCAA Record Book after this season (back-of-envelope calculations/estimates):

23rd in Career Wins
3rd in Career Shutouts
9th in Career GAA
7th or 8th in Career Save Percentage
1st in Consecutive Games Played by a Goalie
1st (by a country mile) in Consecutive Games Started by a Goalie
3rd in Consecutive Shutout Minutes
4th (with many) in Consecutive Shutouts
2010: 21st in Season Save Percentage
2010: Another entry at 7th in Season Shutouts

This isn't to elevate any player's performance above others.  These reflect on the team and coach as well.

[Tom Lento]

Yes, indeed. I think everyone - especially the seniors - hoped for a longer run in the NCAAs, but they had a great 4 years and were part of the rebuilding process that brought Cornell back to the NCAA tournament and an ECAC title back to Cornell.

[adamw]

I was very specific in my criticism, if a bit colorful in presentation: this team underperformed expectations.  As I've said elsewhere, I have no problem with Schafer or his system, nor a problem with Cornell's hockey program as a whole.  This year, however, they sucked relative to where many of us expected them to be back in October.  I, unlike most of you, have no problem saying so.

I think the problem was moreso with your expectations than with the performance.  Inconsistency = not that good, relatively speaking.  If sometimes you're good and sometimes you're not, that's really, by definition, a team that isn't great.  I think "inconsistent" is overused in sports.  It's usually said by people thinking you should be better than you are, and trying to make excuses for it -- assuming (wrongly) that the good moments should have happened more of the time.  Or assuming (wrongly) that just because good moments happen, that they are supposed to happen all the time.

Brown played 2 good games against Yale.  Were they just inconsistent this year?  Or were they just a stinky team capable of playing the occasional good game?

So, Cornell's "inconsistency" is because they were a pretty good team, but not a great - which is pretty much what should've been expected at the beginning of the season.  It's within the realm of possibility that such a team could get hot and make the Frozen Four, and it was certainly worth hoping for it / rooting for it / getting excited about the possibility.  But I don't think it was ever likely or should've been "expected."