Cu - 0 Yale - 6 final

[Swampy]

Schafer has had many years to figure these problems out and we still do not have a sustained NCAA tourney presence.

You say that as if that's some sort of standard for being a decent team. Consider tourney appearances since 2002 (the last 10 tournaments):

...

44 teams made it to the tournament. Six did so more frequently than Cornell. Not every team can be Michigan, North Dakota, or UNH.  Of course those teams have exactly as many titles as Cornell over the last decade.

And let's see how many Forzen 4 appearances teams had in the same 10-year span:

BC: 6
UND: 5
Maine: 4
Michigan: 4
Minnesota: 3
UNH: 2
Michigan State: 2
Denver: 2
Miami: 2
Wisconsin: 2
BU: 1
Cornell: 1
Notre Dame: 1
Bemidji: 1
Vermont: 1
CC: 1
Duluth: 1
RIT: 1


Sustained means we don't get knocked out first or second round. Making the tourney is one thing. Winning games is another.

I'm sorry.  Complaining that "only" a single Frozen Four appearance somehow represents failure? As someone who graduated in the mid-80's when we didn't make the ECAC final four let alone the NCAA's, I have little to complain about regarding our success during the Schafer era.  For those who would rather see someone else at the helm, I say be careful what you wish for.

From a 1994 grad, I have to second you on that one.

Yeah, there are a number of coaching vacancies out there. If you remember how you felt when you saw the headlines last spring, "Donahue to BC" and "Tambroni to PSU," try on this thought experiment: "Schafer to PC."

Not very pretty, is it?

[ugarte]

We are not talking about the past ugarte, we are talking about the future. I don't think anyone will argue that this season was beyond expectations. However, the goal here is to avoid games like this in years to come, not pat ourselves on the back and say, "Oh it's because they were #1."

Really? Because from where I'm sitting the goal here appears to be to whine every time Cornell doesn't make the final four and determinedly avoid the discussion of evidence that suggests that the fault is not endemic to the system but rather a short-term downturn in an otherwise stellar run. Different people take different approaches to this: you and Facetimer seem to think that a coaching change to a unicorn* is the answer while Kyle seems to think that the kids are texting during practice instead of doing passing drills.**

The majority of us here think the answer is that anyone who expects Cornell to be the #1 team in the ECAC every year and a perpetual national title contender doesn't really pay attention to sports. Every team in every league has down years you ride out the storms when they are as mild as "lost in the ECAC championship game with a young team the year after losing most of the offense, an all-ECAC goalie and the #1 defenseman."

* This is an accurate portrayal.
** This is intentional exaggeration. Though, on this note, I always thought that LeNeveu and McKee always had to watch a lot of shitty passing too. Those teams weren't graceful passers, they mucked along the wall for the puck, got it up ice by dumping it into the corners and then mucked around again to set up their offense. If hockey was a skills competition even the best of Cornell's squads would have been middle of the pack.

[Swampy]

We are not talking about the past ugarte, we are talking about the future. I don't think anyone will argue that this season was beyond expectations. However, the goal here is to avoid games like this in years to come, not pat ourselves on the back and say, "Oh it's because they were #1."

Really? Because from where I'm sitting the goal here appears to be to whine every time Cornell doesn't make the final four and determinedly avoid the discussion of evidence that suggests that the fault is not endemic to the system but rather a short-term downturn in an otherwise stellar run. Different people take different approaches to this: you and Facetimer seem to think that a coaching change to a unicorn* is the answer while Kyle seems to think that the kids are texting during practice instead of doing passing drills.**

The majority of us here think the answer is that anyone who expects Cornell to be the #1 team in the ECAC every year and a perpetual national title contender doesn't really pay attention to sports. Every team in every league has down years you ride out the storms when they are as mild as "lost in the ECAC championship game with a young team the year after losing most of the offense, an all-ECAC goalie and the #1 defenseman."

* This is an accurate portrayal.
** This is intentional exaggeration. Though, on this note, I always thought that LeNeveu and McKee always had to watch a lot of shitty passing too. Those teams weren't graceful passers, they mucked along the wall for the puck, got it up ice by dumping it into the corners and then mucked around again to set up their offense. If hockey was a skills competition even the best of Cornell's squads would have been middle of the pack.

Although I agree with just about everything ugarte says here, I do disagree with the last line. Watching our Harkness-coached NC teams was like watching a work of art. It was a different style in a different time, but the passes were amazing.

[ugarte]

Although I agree with just about everything ugarte says here, I do disagree with the last line. Watching our Harkness-coached NC teams was like watching a work of art. It was a different style in a different time, but the passes were amazing.

I only meant to refer to the best of the Schafer-coached squads. My Big Red watching started during the McCutcheon era.

[Rosey]

** This is intentional exaggeration. Though, on this note, I always thought that LeNeveu and McKee always had to watch a lot of shitty passing too. Those teams weren't graceful passers, they mucked along the wall for the puck, got it up ice by dumping it into the corners and then mucked around again to set up their offense. If hockey was a skills competition even the best of Cornell's squads would have been middle of the pack.

Feel free to go back through the archives and confirm that I've stated the same thing myself many times in the past. I recall once saying something about the passing ability of the mid-00's teams making the ECAC champion squads of the mid-90's crap bricks. :-)

The issue is not Cornell's ability in absolute terms: having seen the B&W footage of the 1960 NCAA title game, I am pretty well convinced that my beer league team could have beaten either team without breaking much of a sweat. The issue is precisely Cornell's ability relative to the other teams it is playing now: that means making adjustments to the system to compensate for other coaching staffs doing the same thing. Yale's system appears to have been designed specifically to beat Cornell—a strategy that appears to be working—which means Cornell needs a plan to counter this.

Let me be clear that I'm not saying that I expected this Cornell squad to beat this Yale squad, but I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a probability greater than zero of winning any particular game: the system should prevent 6-0 losses given a reasonable D1 talent gap. If the final score were 2-0 or 4-2, we would not be having this conversation.

[ajh258]

Really? Because from where I'm sitting the goal here appears to be to whine every time Cornell doesn't make the final four and determinedly avoid the discussion of evidence that suggests that the fault is not endemic to the system but rather a short-term downturn in an otherwise stellar run. Different people take different approaches to this: you and Facetimer seem to think that a coaching change to a unicorn* is the answer while Kyle seems to think that the kids are texting during practice instead of doing passing drills.**

Is it a short term downturn? Again, it depends on what your definition of success and downturns are and, as mentioned before, it seems that your standards are just not as high. Of course you're going to say I'm complaining too much if you think the team has already met its goals. Taking personal shots at me for making suggestions might make you feel better, but it does not benefit the team. The attitude of content you have with our current performance demonstrates that you've given up on improving our team in a significant way. If that's true, please take a back seat and watch the rest of us at least try to make the program better. Additionally, I'm tired of trying to defend my position of not asking for a coaching change. Please read my previous posts before speaking.

The majority of us here think the answer is that anyone who expects Cornell to be the #1 team in the ECAC every year and a perpetual national title contender doesn't really pay attention to sports. Every team in every league has down years you ride out the storms when they are as mild as "lost in the ECAC championship game with a young team the year after losing most of the offense, an all-ECAC goalie and the #1 defenseman."

You're exaggerating our expectations and trying to make those of us who want to see the program better look like fools. Of course every team has up and downs, but I'm suggesting we try to move up the range of ups and downs. No one's asking for Frozen Four appearances every year, but does 2 or 3 times every decade sound that impossible? Right now, it doesn't look like we're on that track.

Also, I've never said the problem is with this year's team, yet you guys keep bringing this up over and over and over again.

[Ben]

I'm disappointed that we have such low standards. No wonder student attendance has been declining.

As a current student I can tell you the exact reason why student attendance has been declining. I know tons of people who'd love to have season tickets and just can't afford to shell out $260 dollars. As a result the a lot of the people who replaced them are people who thought "it might be cool to see some hockey games" and aren't tested for their dedication through "the line". If "the line" were still in place as the proof to the Athletic Department of fan commitment, instead of money as the benchmark, you'd have a far more hardcore fan base that would show up every weekend. For example, it costs less to get season football tickets at PSU for students than it does for students to have season tickets to Cornell Hockey. The Athletic Department has outpriced their best customer base.

Sorry to jump back to an earlier line of discussion, but this is absolutely correct, and it's the reason I didn't get STs last year or this year: they're just too expensive, and as I've found the cost of individual game tickets adds up quickly as well.  This did mean that I was able to watch a fantastic basketball team and a great women's hockey team, but I'd prefer to be able to watch men's hockey as well.  I'm sure that the atmosphere for the women's games near the end of the season was directly related to the fact that those were free (with the exception of the NCAA game, when tickets were just $3).

However, the Penn State argument is not a fair comparison because they have significantly fewer home games.

[css228]

I'm disappointed that we have such low standards. No wonder student attendance has been declining.

As a current student I can tell you the exact reason why student attendance has been declining. I know tons of people who'd love to have season tickets and just can't afford to shell out $260 dollars. As a result the a lot of the people who replaced them are people who thought "it might be cool to see some hockey games" and aren't tested for their dedication through "the line". If "the line" were still in place as the proof to the Athletic Department of fan commitment, instead of money as the benchmark, you'd have a far more hardcore fan base that would show up every weekend. For example, it costs less to get season football tickets at PSU for students than it does for students to have season tickets to Cornell Hockey. The Athletic Department has outpriced their best customer base.

Sorry to jump back to an earlier line of discussion, but this is absolutely correct, and it's the reason I didn't get STs last year or this year: they're just too expensive, and as I've found the cost of individual game tickets adds up quickly as well.  This did mean that I was able to watch a fantastic basketball team and a great women's hockey team, but I'd prefer to be able to watch men's hockey as well.  I'm sure that the atmosphere for the women's games near the end of the season was directly related to the fact that those were free (with the exception of the NCAA game, when tickets were just $3).

However, the Penn State argument is not a fair comparison because they have significantly fewer home games.

Still we shouldn't be paying more than PSU students for big time DI football. Even if you dropped tickets by $3 a game (200 for students instead of 260), I'm sure you'd see a massive increase in student attendance.

[Jim Hyla]

Really? Because from where I'm sitting the goal here appears to be to whine every time Cornell doesn't make the final four and determinedly avoid the discussion of evidence that suggests that the fault is not endemic to the system but rather a short-term downturn in an otherwise stellar run. Different people take different approaches to this: you and Facetimer seem to think that a coaching change to a unicorn* is the answer while Kyle seems to think that the kids are texting during practice instead of doing passing drills.**

Is it a short term downturn? Again, it depends on what your definition of success and downturns are and, as mentioned before, it seems that your standards are just not as high. Of course you're going to say I'm complaining too much if you think the team has already met its goals. Taking personal shots at me for making suggestions might make you feel better, but it does not benefit the team. The attitude of content you have with our current performance demonstrates that you've given up on improving our team in a significant way. If that's true, please take a back seat and watch the rest of us at least try to make the program better. Additionally, I'm tired of trying to defend my position of not asking for a coaching change. Please read my previous posts before speaking.

The majority of us here think the answer is that anyone who expects Cornell to be the #1 team in the ECAC every year and a perpetual national title contender doesn't really pay attention to sports. Every team in every league has down years you ride out the storms when they are as mild as "lost in the ECAC championship game with a young team the year after losing most of the offense, an all-ECAC goalie and the #1 defenseman."

You're exaggerating our expectations and trying to make those of us who want to see the program better look like fools. Of course every team has up and downs, but I'm suggesting we try to move up the range of ups and downs. No one's asking for Frozen Four appearances every year, but does 2 or 3 times every decade sound that impossible? Right now, it doesn't look like we're on that track.

Also, I've never said the problem is with this year's team, yet you guys keep bringing this up over and over and over again.

Wow, I never knew we had the possibility of improving the team. Tell me how we can do it, I'll sign up.

Well, I guess I do know how we (I) can improve the team. You (I) contribute financially and spiritually (cheering, etc.). You (I) try and give them enough finances to succeed and provide enough of the Lynah atmosphere, that those who get turned on by that want to come here.

Past that, what we (I) do on this board is bullshit. I happened to like to bullshit, so I post a lot. But I certainly don't think I help the team by posting here. I hope no one in athletics spends much time here, or else I'm hurting the team, as their time would be a lot better spent doing other things.

How the h*ll (Yeah, I don't know why I can type bullshit and not this, so don't ask. OK?) you think we help the team by our mouthing off here, is beyond me. Maybe you can explain it sometime.

Again, what we do here is bullshit (as in talking, not that everything said is). It doesn't help or hurt the team. There, I'm glad I said it.::thud::

[ugarte]

Is it a short term downturn? Again, it depends on what your definition of success and downturns are and, as mentioned before, it seems that your standards are just not as high.

The level of success that you seem to expect hasn't existed at Cornell, with the exception of one three-year stretch, since before your parents met each other. So this is either a short-term downturn or the middle of an INCREDIBLY long shitshow that will continue forever.

[Al DeFlorio]

Is it a short term downturn? Again, it depends on what your definition of success and downturns are and, as mentioned before, it seems that your standards are just not as high.

The level of success that you seem to expect hasn't existed at Cornell, with the exception of one three-year stretch, since before your parents met each other. So this is either a short-term downturn or the middle of an INCREDIBLY long shitshow that will continue forever.

Thank you for adding some much-needed sense to this ridiculous discussion.  Anyone who thinks Cornell is going to go out today and find another Ned Harkness who will recreate 1967-1970 is hallucinatory.  As someone asked above--and was never answered--who is this savior Cornell is magically going to hire?  Jerry York?

[underskill]

I'm disappointed that we have such low standards. No wonder student attendance has been declining.

As a current student I can tell you the exact reason why student attendance has been declining. I know tons of people who'd love to have season tickets and just can't afford to shell out $260 dollars. As a result the a lot of the people who replaced them are people who thought "it might be cool to see some hockey games" and aren't tested for their dedication through "the line". If "the line" were still in place as the proof to the Athletic Department of fan commitment, instead of money as the benchmark, you'd have a far more hardcore fan base that would show up every weekend. For example, it costs less to get season football tickets at PSU for students than it does for students to have season tickets to Cornell Hockey. The Athletic Department has outpriced their best customer base.

Sorry to jump back to an earlier line of discussion, but this is absolutely correct, and it's the reason I didn't get STs last year or this year: they're just too expensive, and as I've found the cost of individual game tickets adds up quickly as well.  This did mean that I was able to watch a fantastic basketball team and a great women's hockey team, but I'd prefer to be able to watch men's hockey as well.  I'm sure that the atmosphere for the women's games near the end of the season was directly related to the fact that those were free (with the exception of the NCAA game, when tickets were just $3).

However, the Penn State argument is not a fair comparison because they have significantly fewer home games.

Still we shouldn't be paying more than PSU students for big time DI football. Even if you dropped tickets by $3 a game (200 for students instead of 260), I'm sure you'd see a massive increase in student attendance.

If you can expand Lynah to 100,000 seats, and get BCS/Big 10 tv revenue to supplement ticket revenue, then this argument would hold up slightly better.

[Swampy]

Although I agree with just about everything ugarte says here, I do disagree with the last line. Watching our Harkness-coached NC teams was like watching a work of art. It was a different style in a different time, but the passes were amazing.

I only meant to refer to the best of the Schafer-coached squads. My Big Red watching started during the McCutcheon era.

I knew what you meant. Personally, I long for the days when our goalie(s) is bored and leans on his stick, watching the game as our offense keeps the puck at the other end of the ice, taking shot after shot, checking to keep the other team bottled up, and making one-touch passes once they recover the puck. But that's not exactly Schafer's [current]  style, and I'm OK with that.

[marty]

Really? Because from where I'm sitting the goal here appears to be to whine every time Cornell doesn't make the final four and determinedly avoid the discussion of evidence that suggests that the fault is not endemic to the system but rather a short-term downturn in an otherwise stellar run. Different people take different approaches to this: you and Facetimer seem to think that a coaching change to a unicorn* is the answer while Kyle seems to think that the kids are texting during practice instead of doing passing drills.**

Is it a short term downturn? Again, it depends on what your definition of success and downturns are and, as mentioned before, it seems that your standards are just not as high. Of course you're going to say I'm complaining too much if you think the team has already met its goals. Taking personal shots at me for making suggestions might make you feel better, but it does not benefit the team. The attitude of content you have with our current performance demonstrates that you've given up on improving our team in a significant way. If that's true, please take a back seat and watch the rest of us at least try to make the program better. Additionally, I'm tired of trying to defend my position of not asking for a coaching change. Please read my previous posts before speaking.

The majority of us here think the answer is that anyone who expects Cornell to be the #1 team in the ECAC every year and a perpetual national title contender doesn't really pay attention to sports. Every team in every league has down years you ride out the storms when they are as mild as "lost in the ECAC championship game with a young team the year after losing most of the offense, an all-ECAC goalie and the #1 defenseman."

You're exaggerating our expectations and trying to make those of us who want to see the program better look like fools. Of course every team has up and downs, but I'm suggesting we try to move up the range of ups and downs. No one's asking for Frozen Four appearances every year, but does 2 or 3 times every decade sound that impossible? Right now, it doesn't look like we're on that track.

Also, I've never said the problem is with this year's team, yet you guys keep bringing this up over and over and over again.

Wow, I never knew we had the possibility of improving the team. Tell me how we can do it, I'll sign up.

Well, I guess I do know how we (I) can improve the team. You (I) contribute financially and spiritually (cheering, etc.). You (I) try and give them enough finances to succeed and provide enough of the Lynah atmosphere, that those who get turned on by that want to come here.

Past that, what we (I) do on this board is bullshit. I happened to like to bullshit, so I post a lot. But I certainly don't think I help the team by posting here. I hope no one in athletics spends much time here, or else I'm hurting the team, as their time would be a lot better spent doing other things.

How the h*ll (Yeah, I don't know why I can type bullshit and not this, so don't ask. OK?) you think we help the team by our mouthing off here, is beyond me. Maybe you can explain it sometime.

Again, what we do here is bullshit (as in talking, not that everything said is). It doesn't help or hurt the team. There, I'm glad I said it.::thud::

In appreciation of Jim's post I found this:





and this:

[Jim Hyla]

In appreciation of Jim's post I found this:





and this:

Thanks, I needed that.:-}