Cu - 0 Yale - 6 final

[Scersk '97]

To be fair, Yale has been great for three years.  However, they have a problem:

Code Select Expand



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yale                                |  Overall - 34 GP  (27- 6- 1  .809)  | Conf Only - 22 GP  (17- 4- 1  .795) |      Career    
------------------------------------|-------------------------------------|-------------------------------------|----------------
## Player                    POS YR | GP   G   A PTS PEN/MIN  PP SH GW GT | GP   G   A PTS PEN/MIN  PP SH GW GT |  GP   G   A PTS
2  Jimmy Martin                D SR | 34   7  15  22  16/ 32   4  0  1  0 | 22   3   7  10  12/ 24   1  0  1  0 | 136  11  46  57
7  Mike Matczak                D SR | 34   2  12  14   7/ 22   0  0  1  0 | 22   1   9  10   3/ 14   0  0  1  0 | 112   8  31  39
12 Ken Trentowski              D SR | 32   1   3   4   8/ 16   0  0  0  0 | 22   1   2   3   6/ 12   0  0  0  0 |  91   2  13  15
1  Ryan Rondeau                G SR | 32   0   2   2           0  0  0  0 | 22   0   1   1           0  0  0  0 |  46   0   2   2


There's their problem.  If Allain can scratch together a team that will have anything more than a mediocre season after losing that much D, I'll hail him as the second coming.

[Towerroad]

To be fair, Yale has been great for three years.  However, they have a problem:

Code Select Expand



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yale                                |  Overall - 34 GP  (27- 6- 1  .809)  | Conf Only - 22 GP  (17- 4- 1  .795) |      Career    
------------------------------------|-------------------------------------|-------------------------------------|----------------
## Player                    POS YR | GP   G   A PTS PEN/MIN  PP SH GW GT | GP   G   A PTS PEN/MIN  PP SH GW GT |  GP   G   A PTS
2  Jimmy Martin                D SR | 34   7  15  22  16/ 32   4  0  1  0 | 22   3   7  10  12/ 24   1  0  1  0 | 136  11  46  57
7  Mike Matczak                D SR | 34   2  12  14   7/ 22   0  0  1  0 | 22   1   9  10   3/ 14   0  0  1  0 | 112   8  31  39
12 Ken Trentowski              D SR | 32   1   3   4   8/ 16   0  0  0  0 | 22   1   2   3   6/ 12   0  0  0  0 |  91   2  13  15
1  Ryan Rondeau                G SR | 32   0   2   2           0  0  0  0 | 22   0   1   1           0  0  0  0 |  46   0   2   2


There's their problem.  If Allain can scratch together a team that will have anything more than a mediocre season after losing that much D, I'll hail him as the second coming.

Well, that certainly makes this a post worth saving.

[Tom Lento]

The systems put in place by the coaches and the player talent is intricately linked and the Cornell/Yale coaching staffs put in place systems that suit their teams.

Cornell does not play a tape-to-tape transition game through the neutral zone.  Cornell uses tips and quick dump-ins through the neutral zone to get the puck deep below the goal line, executes puck retrieval (aka forechecking) and attempts to generate offense from the offensive zone cycle.  

Yale plays a 2 out of the zone break-out transition game through the neutral zone that relies on the defense making tape-to-tape passes to the stretch forwards or the third forward through the neutral zone.  This is the primary reason Yale "looks so fast."  Their forwards essentially start first - transitioning to offense earlier.  Yale generates offense from quick zone-entry shots.  Also, Dartmouth's top line plays this system.

Cornell could not play Yale's system and Yale could not play Cornell's system.  Yale is successful this year, because they have enough skill to execute the stretch plays (especially the third forward who is usually out-numbered 2-to-1 in the neutral zone) without leaving themselves susceptible to the counter-attack (see 9-7 loss to BC in NCAA quarterfinals last year).  

Yale's system of play requires a much higher level of puck control and smart decision making on the part of the players.  Cornell's system removes the decision making from the players and requires a physical presence to generate offense from the corners.  

Schafer attempted to counter the stretch system in two ways.  First, a Cornell forward should be on one of the stretch forwards creating a 1-on-2 overload with the Cornell defender and forward against one of the stretch forwards.  Second, a Cornell forward should be high-side on the third forward.  This is designed to slow the transition through the neutral zone and force turnovers or force the stretch offense team to dump and chase.  It worked against Dartmouth, it didn't against Yale.  Why?  Yale is more talented and could execute.  This Yale team is the culmination of events starting with Keith Allain's hire in 2006 and his ability to recruit players that fit this stretch system.

The great thing about eLynah is if we wait long enough even a thread this inane will turn up one intelligent post.  Thank you.

All of the people talking about the fundamental failings of Cornell's system need to read this post a few times and try to understand that it's not inherently better or worse, it's just different. You still need talent and execution, and Cornell has frankly had less of both when compared with Yale over the past couple of seasons. I understand that you might prefer Yale's system to Cornell's - all else being equal it's a prettier style of hockey - but it's not fundamentally more effective. People make such a big deal over the 2005-ish rule changes that supposedly favor faster teams and systems that rely on skilled forwards handling the puck and passing through space. Over that stretch Cornell and Yale have been about equally successful in absolute terms, and Wisconsin - more of a Cornell style team in a Yale style league - has won a national title and played in another national title game (where they laid an egg, I admit, but they still got there).

I'm going to pick on Kyle now, because he should really know better.

This is completely beside the point. Even if it is true (which is not at all clear), the difference in talent is a small part of the problem. Harvard brings in scads of blue chippahs every year, and they still suck hairy donkey scrotum. The difference here is coaching and system: some of it you can forgive for Cornell being so young this year, but the things I pointed out earlier (which someone, I think Rancor, correctly phrased as a lack of tape-to-tape passing and too much hesitation) are a result of a failure in coaching, not a lack of talent. A good transition game is a learned skill, not an instinct.

You make two points with the bolded statement. Both are more or less wrong in the D-I context.

First, reduced passing precision and that deer-in-the-headlights hesitation is *exactly* what I would expect from a team playing against a faster, more aggressive opponent. Yale has more talent, experience and speed than Cornell this year, and that enables them to be more aggressive. They're certainly faster and more aggressive than the average ECAC team. While the difference may seem marginal to us, it's an immense change for the guys on the ice. If you've ever played a sport at a reasonably high level and experienced the difference between a pretty good opponent and a truly great one you'll understand, but you don't even need to be all that good at the game of your choice to get the experience. Try playing up one level in your local adult league. Let's suppose you go from the top 30% to the bottom 50% of the talent distribution. You'll suddenly find that you're hesitating with the puck and completely failing to make passes that you normally hit. Why? Because you're rushed, and you're constantly working against unexpectedly close coverage. At my level of hockey, the difference is probably less than half a second (out of 2-3 seconds or so - we're really slow). In the sport I'm actually good at the rules give us 10 seconds to make decisions, but when the time comes to deliver a pass we have maybe half a second to react and execute. The difference between half a second in a high level game and 3/4 of a second in a mid-level game is immense. It's the difference between feeling like you control the game and can toy with your defenders and feeling like you don't know what the hell you're doing but you'd better do something fast. The fact that the better team also plays closer coverage - which requires greater precision in your passing - just amplifies the problems that arise as a result of rushing your play.

Second, a good transition game is a learned skill, not an instinct, but that skill is rarely learned at this point in a player's development curve. By the time you become a D-I athlete you've pretty well established yourself as a particular type of player. As jdeafv says, Cornell's players can't play Yale's system, and Yale's players can't play Cornell's style. It's a waste of time to even try - recruit the guys who fit your system, or fit your system to the guys you can recruit. Don't try to fit your guys to a system that emphasizes their weaknesses while hiding their strengths. Can Cornell be better on transition? Sure, but I think they get more offensive leverage by focusing on the breakout (rather than the run-and-gun transition game), the forecheck (duh) and the power play set (and with this team I think they should have ditched the umbrella in favor of an overload, but that's just me). In my time watching this program Cornell has never been a great passing team, but the best Cornell teams were pretty good with the puck. Better than this year, certainly, so I'm not saying they don't need work in transition - I just don't think trying to move towards a stretch transition system like Yale's is the right thing to do.

Whether or not this young group of college hockey players gets to be as good as Yale's incredible senior-heavy squad has been this season is an open question. That is the true test of coaching. Personally, I'm willing to wait for a few years and see how things pan out, and I don't think systemic changes are necessary.

To be competitive at the national level Cornell needs more depth, more experience and better execution - time will tell if Schafer can get those things. If he can't, we can start talking about a coaching change. If he can, I'm sure you all will still be here bitching about how Cornell hasn't won the NCAA title yet, or (hopefully) how Cornell only managed one title despite putting together a team for the ages.

[billhoward]

Or you can just hit them harder along the boards and the puck eventually pops loose.

[Rosey]

First, reduced passing precision and that deer-in-the-headlights hesitation is *exactly* what I would expect from a team playing against a faster, more aggressive opponent.

Sure, but the hesitation looked to these eyes like "I don't know where my pass options are!", not a moment of hesitation in choosing one of the predetermined choices. One of the first things amateur hockey players learn is how to get open so the puck carrier has someone to pass the puck to: this is not something a D1 team should have trouble with, and yet I saw this hesitation on far too many Cornell breakouts.

Second, a good transition game is a learned skill, not an instinct, but that skill is rarely learned at this point in a player's development curve. By the time you become a D-I athlete you've pretty well established yourself as a particular type of player. As jdeafv says, Cornell's players can't play Yale's system, and Yale's players can't play Cornell's style. It's a waste of time to even try - recruit the guys who fit your system, or fit your system to the guys you can recruit. Don't try to fit your guys to a system that emphasizes their weaknesses while hiding their strengths.

Just to be clear, I am not advocating that Cornell change its system to Yale's; I don't think you should have gotten that from what I've written. I am merely arguing that Coach Schafer in four years has not figured out how to counter such a system, and I feel he's going to have a hard time ever doing it if Cornell can't manage to stop giving Yale a few tenths of a second to adjust before each telegraphed pass.

I played a game during the latter half of the second and third period in which I observed the Cornell puck carrier's body language and tried to predict where the pass was going. The result? I got it right nearly every time. And if I can get it right sitting 150 feet away with the puck carrier facing the other way, you damn well know the Yale players can, too.

[Scersk '97]

If Allain can scratch together a team that will have anything more than a mediocre season after losing that much D, I'll hail him as the second coming.

Well, that certainly makes this a post worth saving.

Ah, but of what would I hail him as the second coming?  Of "Schafer," i.e., an ECAC coach that can sustain his program at a high level year after year.

How 'bout a chart?

=======================================================================================
Coach             # of cons. seasons  Comments
                  non-losing (active)
=======================================================================================
Overall           min. 10
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Red Berenson      24                  Roused a sleeping giant, yet "only" 2 nat. champs
Dick Umile        15                  Only 2 conference championships
Jerry York        14                  True beneficiary of BC's move to HE
Mike Schafer      12                  Gwozdecky/Berenson or Umile on national level?
Rand Pecknold     12                  Includes time in the MAAC and AH; 18-18-3 in '09
Scott Owens       12                  Sustained what Lucia turned around
George Gwozdecky  11                  Roused another sleeping giant
=======================================================================================
ECAC                               
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Schafer      12                  3 #1 seeds, 5 conf. champs, 10 app. in finals
Keith Allain       4                  Jerry York or Joe Marsh?  Not Tim Taylor.
Nate Leaman        2                  Probably the most impressive young coach
Seth Appert        2                  "A nice guy," according to Schott.  Who cares?
Guy Gadowsky       1                  At least it's warmer.
Bob Gaudet         1                  At Dartmouth as at Brown, still a hot-headed dick
=======================================================================================
ECAC              # of cons. losing   Comments
                    seasons
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
George Roll        3                  Should add "Must Go" as additional surnames
Teddy Donato       2                  Hopefully Harvard's Timmy Taylor
Brendan Whittet    2                  Rumblings of a return to respectability
Rand Pecknold      1                  Inclusion above reflects cupcake OOC schedule
Joe Marsh          1                  The ECAC's Wile E. Coyote
Don Vaughan        1                  What an inexplicable season!

So, can we quit complaining now?  My own take on recent history is that, had the WCHA (specifically, Denver, Minnesota, and Wisconsin) not undergone a renaissance at the same time as Schafer built his first few juggernauts, we probably would have made two more frozen fours and won at least one of those.  Right now, I hope Minnesota and Wisconsin continue to have problems, North Dakota has a huge recruiting scandal, BC and Jerry York drop off the face of the Earth, Jeff Jackson curses the Lord and gets fired, Red Berenson finally decides to retire, Enrico Blasi takes his place but doesn't fit in, and Jack Parker puts together a good but somewhat underwhelming team that we can beat in the championship game in 2013.

I'm not exactly worried about Yale or Allain yet.  Talk to me again in eight years.

[BigRedHockeyFan]

Yale had a great offense last year and this year.  I think one of the biggest reasons for their increased success this year is Rondeau, who statistically is the best goalie in the NCAA.  GAA: 1.83 Save %: 0.932

Last year, all 4 Yale goalies had a GAA > 2.5 and a save % < 0.897

http://www.collegehockeynews.com/stats/team-overall.php?s=20092010&td=59

I'm sure everyone remembers the 9 goals that were given up to BC during the tournament.  

For 2011-2012, if they can't come up with someone decent to replace Rondeau (and right now it isn't obvious who will step up), they are going to have a problem.

[css228]

The systems put in place by the coaches and the player talent is intricately linked and the Cornell/Yale coaching staffs put in place systems that suit their teams.

Cornell does not play a tape-to-tape transition game through the neutral zone.  Cornell uses tips and quick dump-ins through the neutral zone to get the puck deep below the goal line, executes puck retrieval (aka forechecking) and attempts to generate offense from the offensive zone cycle.  

Yale plays a 2 out of the zone break-out transition game through the neutral zone that relies on the defense making tape-to-tape passes to the stretch forwards or the third forward through the neutral zone.  This is the primary reason Yale "looks so fast."  Their forwards essentially start first - transitioning to offense earlier.  Yale generates offense from quick zone-entry shots.  Also, Dartmouth's top line plays this system.

Cornell could not play Yale's system and Yale could not play Cornell's system.  Yale is successful this year, because they have enough skill to execute the stretch plays (especially the third forward who is usually out-numbered 2-to-1 in the neutral zone) without leaving themselves susceptible to the counter-attack (see 9-7 loss to BC in NCAA quarterfinals last year).  

Yale's system of play requires a much higher level of puck control and smart decision making on the part of the players.  Cornell's system removes the decision making from the players and requires a physical presence to generate offense from the corners.  

Schafer attempted to counter the stretch system in two ways.  First, a Cornell forward should be on one of the stretch forwards creating a 1-on-2 overload with the Cornell defender and forward against one of the stretch forwards.  Second, a Cornell forward should be high-side on the third forward.  This is designed to slow the transition through the neutral zone and force turnovers or force the stretch offense team to dump and chase.  It worked against Dartmouth, it didn't against Yale.  Why?  Yale is more talented and could execute.  This Yale team is the culmination of events starting with Keith Allain's hire in 2006 and his ability to recruit players that fit this stretch system.

The great thing about eLynah is if we wait long enough even a thread this inane will turn up one intelligent post.  Thank you.

All of the people talking about the fundamental failings of Cornell's system need to read this post a few times and try to understand that it's not inherently better or worse, it's just different. You still need talent and execution, and Cornell has frankly had less of both when compared with Yale over the past couple of seasons. I understand that you might prefer Yale's system to Cornell's - all else being equal it's a prettier style of hockey - but it's not fundamentally more effective. People make such a big deal over the 2005-ish rule changes that supposedly favor faster teams and systems that rely on skilled forwards handling the puck and passing through space. Over that stretch Cornell and Yale have been about equally successful in absolute terms, and Wisconsin - more of a Cornell style team in a Yale style league - has won a national title and played in another national title game (where they laid an egg, I admit, but they still got there).

I'm going to pick on Kyle now, because he should really know better.

This is completely beside the point. Even if it is true (which is not at all clear), the difference in talent is a small part of the problem. Harvard brings in scads of blue chippahs every year, and they still suck hairy donkey scrotum. The difference here is coaching and system: some of it you can forgive for Cornell being so young this year, but the things I pointed out earlier (which someone, I think Rancor, correctly phrased as a lack of tape-to-tape passing and too much hesitation) are a result of a failure in coaching, not a lack of talent. A good transition game is a learned skill, not an instinct.

You make two points with the bolded statement. Both are more or less wrong in the D-I context.

First, reduced passing precision and that deer-in-the-headlights hesitation is *exactly* what I would expect from a team playing against a faster, more aggressive opponent. Yale has more talent, experience and speed than Cornell this year, and that enables them to be more aggressive. They're certainly faster and more aggressive than the average ECAC team. While the difference may seem marginal to us, it's an immense change for the guys on the ice. If you've ever played a sport at a reasonably high level and experienced the difference between a pretty good opponent and a truly great one you'll understand, but you don't even need to be all that good at the game of your choice to get the experience. Try playing up one level in your local adult league. Let's suppose you go from the top 30% to the bottom 50% of the talent distribution. You'll suddenly find that you're hesitating with the puck and completely failing to make passes that you normally hit. Why? Because you're rushed, and you're constantly working against unexpectedly close coverage. At my level of hockey, the difference is probably less than half a second (out of 2-3 seconds or so - we're really slow). In the sport I'm actually good at the rules give us 10 seconds to make decisions, but when the time comes to deliver a pass we have maybe half a second to react and execute. The difference between half a second in a high level game and 3/4 of a second in a mid-level game is immense. It's the difference between feeling like you control the game and can toy with your defenders and feeling like you don't know what the hell you're doing but you'd better do something fast. The fact that the better team also plays closer coverage - which requires greater precision in your passing - just amplifies the problems that arise as a result of rushing your play.

Second, a good transition game is a learned skill, not an instinct, but that skill is rarely learned at this point in a player's development curve. By the time you become a D-I athlete you've pretty well established yourself as a particular type of player. As jdeafv says, Cornell's players can't play Yale's system, and Yale's players can't play Cornell's style. It's a waste of time to even try - recruit the guys who fit your system, or fit your system to the guys you can recruit. Don't try to fit your guys to a system that emphasizes their weaknesses while hiding their strengths. Can Cornell be better on transition? Sure, but I think they get more offensive leverage by focusing on the breakout (rather than the run-and-gun transition game), the forecheck (duh) and the power play set (and with this team I think they should have ditched the umbrella in favor of an overload, but that's just me). In my time watching this program Cornell has never been a great passing team, but the best Cornell teams were pretty good with the puck. Better than this year, certainly, so I'm not saying they don't need work in transition - I just don't think trying to move towards a stretch transition system like Yale's is the right thing to do.

Whether or not this young group of college hockey players gets to be as good as Yale's incredible senior-heavy squad has been this season is an open question. That is the true test of coaching. Personally, I'm willing to wait for a few years and see how things pan out, and I don't think systemic changes are necessary.

To be competitive at the national level Cornell needs more depth, more experience and better execution - time will tell if Schafer can get those things. If he can't, we can start talking about a coaching change. If he can, I'm sure you all will still be here bitching about how Cornell hasn't won the NCAA title yet, or (hopefully) how Cornell only managed one title despite putting together a team for the ages.

It's times like these I wish eLynah had a like button

[Swampy]

Well, can we recruit the players we need? From what I understand, the big talented players that fits our system are mostly going out west to schools like UND, and we cannot compete on that level due to a lot of factors that have already been discussed multiple times on eLynah.

Keith Allain's recruiting and execution strategy definitely fits well for the Ivies because most of their players are not the huge pre-NHL draft picks that other top schools recruit, and they still dance circles around them. The Yale fans I talked to said most of their players do not plan to play hockey professionally after school (some will perhaps play AHL), and their profile fits perfectly into the student-athlete model that the Ivy League tries to endorse.

So maybe the solution isn't fighting the market forces and trying to recruit the right players for our system. Maybe, the solution is changing the system into something that will fit the players we can recruit. I'm not calling for Schafer's resignations right now, but if he cannot make some fundamental changes in the upcoming months/year, we'll probably watch the same style of hockey for the next decade or so. There might be another amazing 2003 season down the road, but those will be very few and between. For the dedication and resources we have as a fan base and school, we should produce better results than what we have right now.

If this isn't the right system then I'm not sure Schafer is the right coach. I'd rather take a shot at trying to get more guys like Hudon's and Moulson's and Murray's at the moment then trying to switch our coach. Schafer is a great coach, potentially the best we've had since Harkness. But is he a transition hockey coach? I'm not sure.

Forgive me if I'm not as knowledgeable as some of you about systems, but what's wrong with the following reasoning?

[list=1]

• Absent a major rules change, which system will dominate depends on the players in the system. The Detroit Red Wings beat Yale 100% of the time.
• A really talented team can play multiple systems depending on the opponent and circumstance, just as champion B-Ball teams switch between zone, man-to-man, full-court press, etc. on D and beating off the dribble, 3-pointers, etc. on O. This, however, may take time to develop in a team, and players need to stay together for a few years for all facets to gel. Not all lines will be equally good at this.
• Good coaches evolve as the game evolves. They study films, ask friend coaches for advice, visit pro teams using systems they want to emulate, etc. in order to learn how to implement a new system and teach it to their players. Recruiting players suitable for a new system may take longer because (a) players want to play where they fit and must be convinced that the coach is using a new, better-fit system and (b) players want to go to successful programs and a program in transition will have some growing pains.
• Yale has gone from doormat to dominant in almost no time. Before we assume it is a permanent thing, we need to see how things go after their current seniors are gone.
• Yale was helped a great deal by new financial aid policies that Cornell is only adjusting to now and that we may never be able to match. In the latter case, the playing field will never be level, and we'd better get used to it.
• Harkness faced something similar in recruiting. The Boston and Minnesota schools locked up their local talent, and no other region had as deep a talent pool. Harvard, BC, and BU dominated eastern hockey for years. He found a way around this by recruiting in Canada, as had several of the successful western programs. He took lots of heat, and the former haves tried to get rules passed to bring back the previous state of affairs. Finding some way around the formal lack of athletic scholarships but the de facto scholarships at Yale, may be the only option for Cornell. This may take the form of more recruiting in Europe, closer ties with more successful Canadian teams or something else.
• If winning a NC is the goal, we must look beyond the ECAC. It does us no good to get past Yale only to get creamed by goofers and Sue. The question is how to be on par at that level.

[css228]

Well, can we recruit the players we need? From what I understand, the big talented players that fits our system are mostly going out west to schools like UND, and we cannot compete on that level due to a lot of factors that have already been discussed multiple times on eLynah.

Keith Allain's recruiting and execution strategy definitely fits well for the Ivies because most of their players are not the huge pre-NHL draft picks that other top schools recruit, and they still dance circles around them. The Yale fans I talked to said most of their players do not plan to play hockey professionally after school (some will perhaps play AHL), and their profile fits perfectly into the student-athlete model that the Ivy League tries to endorse.

So maybe the solution isn't fighting the market forces and trying to recruit the right players for our system. Maybe, the solution is changing the system into something that will fit the players we can recruit. I'm not calling for Schafer's resignations right now, but if he cannot make some fundamental changes in the upcoming months/year, we'll probably watch the same style of hockey for the next decade or so. There might be another amazing 2003 season down the road, but those will be very few and between. For the dedication and resources we have as a fan base and school, we should produce better results than what we have right now.

If this isn't the right system then I'm not sure Schafer is the right coach. I'd rather take a shot at trying to get more guys like Hudon's and Moulson's and Murray's at the moment then trying to switch our coach. Schafer is a great coach, potentially the best we've had since Harkness. But is he a transition hockey coach? I'm not sure.

Forgive me if I'm not as knowledgeable as some of you about systems, but what's wrong with the following reasoning?

[list=1]

• Absent a major rules change, which system will dominate depends on the players in the system. The Detroit Red Wings beat Yale 100% of the time.
• A really talented team can play multiple systems depending on the opponent and circumstance, just as champion B-Ball teams switch between zone, man-to-man, full-court press, etc. on D and beating off the dribble, 3-pointers, etc. on O. This, however, may take time to develop in a team, and players need to stay together for a few years for all facets to gel. Not all lines will be equally good at this.
• Good coaches evolve as the game evolves. They study films, ask friend coaches for advice, visit pro teams using systems they want to emulate, etc. in order to learn how to implement a new system and teach it to their players. Recruiting players suitable for a new system may take longer because (a) players want to play where they fit and must be convinced that the coach is using a new, better-fit system and (b) players want to go to successful programs and a program in transition will have some growing pains.
• Yale has gone from doormat to dominant in almost no time. Before we assume it is a permanent thing, we need to see how things go after their current seniors are gone.
• Yale was helped a great deal by new financial aid policies that Cornell is only adjusting to now and that we may never be able to match. In the latter case, the playing field will never be level, and we'd better get used to it.
• Harkness faced something similar in recruiting. The Boston and Minnesota schools locked up their local talent, and no other region had as deep a talent pool. Harvard, BC, and BU dominated eastern hockey for years. He found a way around this by recruiting in Canada, as had several of the successful western programs. He took lots of heat, and the former haves tried to get rules passed to bring back the previous state of affairs. Finding some way around the formal lack of athletic scholarships but the de facto scholarships at Yale, may be the only option for Cornell. This may take the form of more recruiting in Europe, closer ties with more successful Canadian teams or something else.
• If winning a NC is the goal, we must look beyond the ECAC. It does us no good to get past Yale only to get creamed by goofers and Sue. The question is how to be on par at that level.

Pretty much saying the same thing that the system really doesn't matter if we have the players, but I do think Schafer is wedded to this system as a coach.

[ajh258]

My question from the beginning was: can we get the players for our style of play? We obviously cannot recruit Red Wings players, so that argument is moot. As I said, all the big, talented guys who work well for our style are being recruited by those western schools, which we cannot compete with due to our financial and academic constraints. Is the problem that we simply cannot pass? Is the problem recruiting? Schafer has had many years to figure these problems out and we still do not have a sustained NCAA tourney presence.

[Chris '03]

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):

Code Select Expand



Michigan       10
UNH            10
North Dakota   10
[b]Denver[/b]          7
[b]BC[/b]              7
Miami           7
[b]Wisconsin[/b]       6
[b]Minnesota[/b]       6
Cornell         6
CC              6
[b]BU[/b]              6
Notre Dame      5
[b]Michigan State[/b]  5
SCSU            5
Maine           5
Harvard         5
Ohio State      4
Bemidji         4
AFA             4
Duluth          3
Yale            3
UNO             2
Holy Cross      2
Mercyhurst      2
Niagara         2
Clarkson        2  
UAH             2
Princeton       2
Vermont         2
Colgate         1
Northeastern    1
Alaska          1
RIT             1
NMU             1
Union           1
Merrimack       1
RPI             1
WMU             1
Quinnipiac      1
SLU             1
UMass           1
Wayne State     1
Mankato         1
Ferris State    1

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.

[Rita]

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):

Code Select Expand



Michigan       10
UNH            10
North Dakota   10
[b][b][b]Denver[/b][/b]          7[/b]
[b][b][b]BC[/b][/b]              7[/b]
Miami           7
[b][b][b]Wisconsin[/b][/b]       6
[b][b]Minnesota[/b][/b]       6[/b]
Cornell         6
CC              6
[b][b][b]BU[/b][/b]              6[/b]
Notre Dame      5
[b][b][b]Michigan State[/b][/b]  5[/b]
SCSU            5
Maine           5
Harvard         5
Ohio State      4
Bemidji         4
AFA             4
Duluth          3
Yale            3
UNO             2
Holy Cross      2
Mercyhurst      2
Niagara         2
Clarkson        2  
UAH             2
Princeton       2
Vermont         2
Colgate         1
Northeastern    1
Alaska          1
RIT             1
NMU             1
Union           1
Merrimack       1
RPI             1
WMU             1
Quinnipiac      1
SLU             1
UMass           1
Wayne State     1
Mankato         1
Ferris State    1

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.

Thank you Chris for compiling this list. I was trying to recall how many national championships Michigan has won in the past decade or so. I thought it was a big fat zero. Glad to know I still have some memory cells that still function ;-).  

Almost every year, Cornell is in a position to win the ECACs and/or have a PWR ranking that puts them in position to be in the NC$$ tournament.  Given our academic and financial aid constraints, I happen to think that is pretty darn good. UND and Michigan presumably have their pick of blue chip recruits and I wonder if their fans are bitching as much as we are about their lack of NC$$ titles over the past decade.

[css228]

Thank you Chris for compiling this list. I was trying to recall how many national championships Michigan has won in the past decade or so. I thought it was a big fat zero. Glad to know I still have some memory cells that still function ;-).  

Almost every year, Cornell is in a position to win the ECACs and/or have a PWR ranking that puts them in position to be in the NC$$ tournament.  Given our academic and financial aid constraints, I happen to think that is pretty darn good. UND and Michigan presumably have their pick of blue chip recruits and I wonder if their fans are bitching as much as we are about their lack of NC$$ titles over the past decade.

Given that Michigan stole most of their chants from us I'm sure they stole our discontent with no titles from us too!

[underskill]

Thank you Chris for compiling this list. I was trying to recall how many national championships Michigan has won in the past decade or so. I thought it was a big fat zero. Glad to know I still have some memory cells that still function ;-).  

Almost every year, Cornell is in a position to win the ECACs and/or have a PWR ranking that puts them in position to be in the NC$$ tournament.  Given our academic and financial aid constraints, I happen to think that is pretty darn good. UND and Michigan presumably have their pick of blue chip recruits and I wonder if their fans are bitching as much as we are about their lack of NC$$ titles over the past decade.

Given that Michigan stole most of their chants from us I'm sure they stole our discontent with no titles from us too!

Harvard basketball fans did a good job of that too
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ul6YhsgjY9I&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJmewyPLkkM&NR=1