Cu - 0 Yale - 6 final

[ftyuv]

I'd just like to say that I think there's a middle ground.

There are teams for whom a championship is often a (reasonable) hope, a frozen four is a reasonable reach/goal, a win in the tourney is the bar, and not making the tourney is a disappointment. There are teams for whom making the tournament would be great, and a frozen four would be the highlight of the program. Can't Cornell be somewhere between?

I think it's reasonable to put our yearly hopes at a frozen four, our goal at a tourney win, and our bar at making the tournament. By that standard, this year is a disappointment. So be it; if you've set your standards such that you never disappoint yourself, you've set them too low.

With all due respect, you are representing a straw man of my position. I never said, and don't recall anyone but Facetimer implying, that Cornell should make the Frozen Four every season. I said they should be "nationally competitive". What that is is open to interpretation: I know it when I see it.

I don't think he was implying CU fans said that, but that there are teams, hint, hint North Dakota, for whom...

But then, I should probably let ftyuv do the speaking.

Pretty much. It seemed to me that there were somewhat extreme ends of the spectrum being implied, if not being explicitly stated, and I felt like explicitly stating what was to me a reasonable "not quite NoDak, not quite Army" standard.

[jtwcornell91]

I have enjoyed this thread immensely and learned a few things from people that know the game much better that I do (which will not prevent me from offering seemingly informed opinions in the future). Perhaps we should take a step back and ask what success is for Cornell Hockey. I think we focus too much on that elusive NCAA title. The nature of sports dictates that we constantly strive for the summit but no one could say that in recent years the Cornell Lax, Womens Hockey, or Wrestling have not been fabulously successful and a source of immense pride even though the ultimate title eluded them. So, lets take our eyes off the summit for a moment and enjoy the view, here are a few of my thoughts informed or otherwise about other measures of success:

1. Beating the Harvard Mens Varsity Figure Skating Society.

2. Filling Lynah East with a sea of Red and humiliating both of the aforesaid Figure Skating Society fans when it comes to Alma Mater singing and general cheering.

3. Filling Lynah and maintaining the traditions and dreaded passion of the Faithful from the Anthems to the Salute.

4. Having the best band in the Ivy's

5. Winning the Ivy League.

6. Making it to the second round of the NCAA Tournament

7. Graduating Hockey Players who got an education

8. Selling out womens games.

9. Consistently beating Yale

If we do these things on a regular basis and never win a title who is to say that the program is not a tremendous success.

I would put Winning the ECACs somewhere on a list of successes.  We won't do it every year, but the more the better.

Also, talk to me again in 3-4 years about whether #9 means anything.  In the past you could have substituted "Clarkson" for "Yale", and look where they are now.

[Aaron M. Griffin]

I would put Winning the ECACs somewhere on a list of successes.

Winning the ECACs should always be a goal.  It seems that people take it for granted that Cornell will make the ECAC Semifinals each year and walk into another ECAC title.  I guess that they have forgotten that there have been periods when that even seemed an unattainable goal for Cornell.

Also, talk to me again in 3-4 years about whether #9 means anything.  In the past you could have substituted "Clarkson" for "Yale", and look where they are now.

That is a fair point.  I think that more will always be at stake with Yale though because there is the added Ivy League rivalry.  I feel that Cornell-Yale has the potential to border upon, but not equal nor surpass, Cornell-Harvard in its passion because of the dynamic as of late wherein, no matter where each team is ranked in the Conference, that game has particular emotional relevance because Yale has embarrassed Cornell as of late.  I would argue that Yale basks in their contemporary success against Cornell.

I feel that Union dominated us this season but that irritates Cornell fans far less than Yale's domination over our program.  I admit, that could be me projecting.

Our first win this year was against Clarkson.  That shows that not even a program in that poor of shape is a guaranteed victory for Cornell.

[Towerroad]

I have enjoyed this thread immensely and learned a few things from people that know the game much better that I do (which will not prevent me from offering seemingly informed opinions in the future). Perhaps we should take a step back and ask what success is for Cornell Hockey. I think we focus too much on that elusive NCAA title. The nature of sports dictates that we constantly strive for the summit but no one could say that in recent years the Cornell Lax, Womens Hockey, or Wrestling have not been fabulously successful and a source of immense pride even though the ultimate title eluded them. So, lets take our eyes off the summit for a moment and enjoy the view, here are a few of my thoughts informed or otherwise about other measures of success:

1. Beating the Harvard Mens Varsity Figure Skating Society.

2. Filling Lynah East with a sea of Red and humiliating both of the aforesaid Figure Skating Society fans when it comes to Alma Mater singing and general cheering.

3. Filling Lynah and maintaining the traditions and dreaded passion of the Faithful from the Anthems to the Salute.

4. Having the best band in the Ivy's

5. Winning the Ivy League.

6. Making it to the second round of the NCAA Tournament

7. Graduating Hockey Players who got an education

8. Selling out womens games.

9. Consistently beating Yale

If we do these things on a regular basis and never win a title who is to say that the program is not a tremendous success.

I would put Winning the ECACs somewhere on a list of successes.  We won't do it every year, but the more the better.

Also, talk to me again in 3-4 years about whether #9 means anything.  In the past you could have substituted "Clarkson" for "Yale", and look where they are now.

The list was more focused on "Smelling the Roses" and small victories but I take your point. If we win the Ivy's and make the Tournament then it is likely we will have done well or the best in the ECAC.

I put #9 there at the suggestion of another poster but I think it is a demon that needs to be exorcised.
 
Like any set of goals they will evolve over time. Perhaps we should have a goal not to have a team that we are consistently losing to (Competitive or dominant vs all the ECAC?). I agree that Cornell-Yale might turn into a fun rivalry, right now it is neither fun nor a rivalry.

[Trotsky]

Because Cornell has been a sort of counterweight to the entire rest of the ECAC over Schafer's time, there's almost always that one team that is a ferocious and often successful competitor.  The mark of a dominant team isn't usually the absence of any competitor, but maintaining a high standard while competitors rise and fall.

Here are the seeds by year in the ECAC tourney.  That one team has been, roughly:

(our RS record and playoff record against them in parens)

1996-1999 Clarkson (2-6-0, 2-0)
1999-2001 St. Lawrence (1-4-1, 0-2)
2002-2006 Harvard (7-3-0, 2-2)
2006-2007 Dartmouth (1-3-0, 0-0)
2008-2009 Princeton (1-3-0 0-1)
2009-2011 Yale (0-6-0, 0-2)

Other than around 2002-2006, when Harvard still got us twice in ECAC finals during their "turn," we've always had one Achilles heel, yet we've stayed on top while those apparent Titans have always fallen back to earth.

[Rosey]

In the past you could have substituted "Clarkson" for "Yale", and look where they are now.

Except that Cornell never lost 8 straight to Clarkson, getting embarrassed in almost every loss. My problem with Cornell's performance vs. Yale is that Cornell continues not to have a clue how to beat this team: this is very different from losing streaks vs. Dartmouth, Clarkson, Harvard, etc.

[Trotsky]

In the past you could have substituted "Clarkson" for "Yale", and look where they are now.

Except that Cornell never lost 8 straight to Clarkson, getting embarrassed in almost every loss. My problem with Cornell's performance vs. Yale is that Cornell continues not to have a clue how to beat this team: this is very different from losing streaks vs. Dartmouth, Clarkson, Harvard, etc.

IMHO the streak against Yale says almost nothing about Cornell and everything about Yale.  They've had an insanely talented team since 2008-09.  We'll see if they continue to dominate us.  If I had to bet, I would say they will be about as good next year as we were this year, for the same reason.

[jtwcornell91]

Because Cornell has been a sort of counterweight to the entire rest of the ECAC over Schafer's time, there's almost always that one team that is a ferocious and often successful competitor.  The mark of a dominant team isn't usually the absence of any competitor, but maintaining a high standard while competitors rise and fall.

Here are the seeds by year in the ECAC tourney.  That one team has been, roughly:

(our RS record and playoff record against them in parens)

1996-1999 Clarkson (2-6-0, 2-0)
1999-2001 St. Lawrence (1-4-1, 0-2)
2002-2006 Harvard (7-3-0, 2-2)
2006-2007 Dartmouth (1-3-0, 0-0)
2008-2009 Princeton (1-3-0 0-1)
2009-2011 Yale (0-6-0, 0-2)

Other than Harvard, who still got us twice in ECAC finals during their "turn," we've always had one Achilles heel, yet we've stayed on top while those apparent Titans have always fallen back to earth.

If it's true that Yale's current team was engineered to beat Cornell, it says a lot about our long-term position in the ECAC.  It's like Allain decided the route to success in the ECAC ran through the Big Red.

[Trotsky]

Another way of quantifying it.  Number of times finishing 1-4, 5-8, 9-12, for those teams and us:

Since 1996

13 3 0 Cornell
8 4 4 Clarkson
6 8 2 Harvard
6 4 6 Dartmouth
6 3 7 St. Lawrence
5 4 7 Yale
3 7 6 Princeton

With Current Config (Since Quinnipiac)

5 1 0 Cornell
3 1 2 Dartmouth
3 1 2 Yale
2 2 2 Clarkson
2 2 2 Harvard
2 2 2 Princeton
2 2 2 St. Lawrence

[Rosey]

In the past you could have substituted "Clarkson" for "Yale", and look where they are now.

Except that Cornell never lost 8 straight to Clarkson, getting embarrassed in almost every loss. My problem with Cornell's performance vs. Yale is that Cornell continues not to have a clue how to beat this team: this is very different from losing streaks vs. Dartmouth, Clarkson, Harvard, etc.

IMHO the streak against Yale says almost nothing about Cornell and everything about Yale.  They've had an insanely talented team since 2008-09.  We'll see if they continue to dominate us.  If I had to bet, I would say they will be about as good next year as we were this year, for the same reason.

I doubt Cornell will beat Yale 4-2, 4-1, and 6-0 next year, embarrassing them in the process. You and I are simply going to have to disagree on the core point: the problem is not that Yale is so insanely talented but that in four years of Yale's building their system around that talent the Cornell coaching staff has not figured out a way to make Cornell consistently competitive against them. As I have pointed out numerous (two? three? five?) times, Cornell's much more talented 2009-10 squad (relative to 2010-11) could not muster a win against Yale, though they did come close in that OT loss late in the season.

[Towerroad]

As many have pointed out Cornell has been the dominant team in the ECAC during the Schafer era. The coach deserves a lot of credit for this. However, in the ECAC ecosystem there are other species that are vying for supremacy. It takes a while to understand that the ecosystem has changed and then to adapt to that change. The ecosystem changed when Mike Schafer arrived in Ithaca. It took a few years but by the middle of the last decade it was clear that Cornell was the dominant species.

So, the other member of the ecosystem, if they want to thrive as JTW said have to recognize that the road to the top of the ECAC leads through the Big Red. In order to rise to the top they either have to recruit bigger tougher players or evolve into a form that the Red can't deal with. Fortunately for them, the Cornell system is clear and it has its weaknesses which over time teams like Yale, Union and Princeton have learned to exploit in their bids for the top spot in the ecosystem.

So that is what I think the root of the angst on these pages. The there are some competitors that want our spot in the ecosystem and are evolving in ways that challenge our dominance. Those who are not concerned think of these rodents (or in one case slime molds) as an evolutionary dead end and those of us who are more concerned wonder if the age of the dinosaurs is at an end.

[ftyuv]

As many have pointed out Cornell has been the dominant team in the ECAC during the Schafer era.

I think that cuts to the big question: is dominance of the ECAC enough to qualify for success? I for one would like a bit more. Again, I'm not calling for a Frozen Four every year and a championship once every five -- but something a bit more than "we're the top of the middle tier."

[Trotsky]

You and I are simply going to have to disagree on the core point: the problem is not that Yale is so insanely talented but that in four years of Yale's building their system around that talent the Cornell coaching staff has not figured out a way to make Cornell consistently competitive against them.

We will disagree, but I don't think you can just "figure out" how to compete with a team that is simply head and shoulders superior to you, as Yale was this year.  Last year Yale had essentially the same squad plus a pre-nautitorial Backmann and Arcobello.  IMHO (and many may disagree) the 2010 Yale squad was actually better than this year's (the main rebuttal to which is Rondeau played great this year).

[Aaron M. Griffin]

I doubt Cornell will beat Yale 4-2, 4-1, and 6-0 next year, embarrassing them in the process. You and I are simply going to have to disagree on the core point: the problem is not that Yale is so insanely talented but that in four years of Yale's building their system around that talent the Cornell coaching staff has not figured out a way to make Cornell consistently competitive against them. As I have pointed out numerous (two? three? five?) times, Cornell's much more talented 2009-10 squad (relative to 2010-11) could not muster a win against Yale, though they did come close in that OT loss late in the season.

I agree with your argument but not necessarily the Schafer-must-go conclusion that likely follows.  The fact that Cornell has not been able to respond to Yale's rise or its system in any meaningful way is very alarming.  If Cornell hockey and Schafer, as a coach, want to remain relevant in college hockey, both must come up with a response to Yale's system.  I do not think that means abandoning Cornell's system entirely but finding a way to adapt it when playing teams such as Yale.  I do feel that Schafer deserves some deference for bringing prestige (everyone on here can debate about how much) back to a program that was performing abysmally before he took the helm.  I will suspend my judgment on Schafer until next season.  The reason that Yale seemed so dominant this year is because of their maturity and team dynamic.  Assets that were absent from a Cornell team that was largely young and inexperienced because they lived in the shadows of the likes of B. Nash, R. Nash, Greening, Krueger, and Scrivens.  I have hope for next year.  We might not be able to embarrass Yale but returning to beating them would be nice.

I was at the 2010 Yale-Cornell OT loss.  The entire credit of that game goes to Scrivens.  Neither Schafer nor the other coaches had any answers to Yale that night.  It was Scrivens's amazing performance with 52 saves that allowed Cornell the chance to even stay even with Yale for so long.  No team should put their goalie in a position where he needs to make 52 saves just to stay in a game.

[Rosey]

I agree with your argument but not necessarily the Schafer-must-go conclusion that likely follows.  The fact that Cornell has not been able to respond to Yale's rise or its system in any meaningful way is very alarming.  If Cornell hockey and Schafer, as a coach, want to remain relevant in college hockey, both must come up with a response to Yale's system.

GAAAAH! I'm just going to stop reading here, because evidently you read only the sentence of my posts or you would have seen that I have written multiple times that I am not advocating anything like switching to the Yale system. When your reading comprehension improves, let me know and I'll give your posts further thought.