CU Hockey-Preseason

[Jim Hyla]

I guess as good a place to start this: INCH profiles Greg Miller.

[Trotsky]

In the last 25 seasons (since 1986-87), the complete list of Cornell sophomores who had at least 25 assists is:

34 1991 Ryan Hughes
25 2011 Greg Miller

[ursusminor]

RPI blog Without a Peer post about Cornell http://www.withoutapeer.com/2011/09/know-your-enemy-cornell.html.

I have no connection to WaP besides for as a reader.

BTW, "Without a Peer" is a phrase in the RPI Alma Mater.

[Jim Hyla]

RPI blog Without a Peer post about Cornell http://www.withoutapeer.com/2011/09/know-your-enemy-cornell.html.

Does Cornell play exceptionally boring hockey? Their fans will deny it to the death ("nothing boring about winning!"), but yes, they do.

So we beat them 5-1 at home (28-22 shots ) and 3-2 in OT there (23-33 shots ), and we're the boring team?

[ursusminor]

RPI blog Without a Peer post about Cornell http://www.withoutapeer.com/2011/09/know-your-enemy-cornell.html.

Does Cornell play exceptionally boring hockey? Their fans will deny it to the death ("nothing boring about winning!"), but yes, they do.

So we beat them 5-1 at home (28-22 shots ) and 3-2 in OT there (23-33 shots ), and we're the boring team?

It sounds like you are agreeing with Tom's statement. ::banana:: He wasn't denying that Cornell wins with this style in the ECAC, but he stated that it is boring. I agree with that. It has nothing to do with the result of either RPI-Cornell game.

[Al DeFlorio]

RPI blog Without a Peer post about Cornell http://www.withoutapeer.com/2011/09/know-your-enemy-cornell.html.

Does Cornell play exceptionally boring hockey? Their fans will deny it to the death ("nothing boring about winning!"), but yes, they do.

So we beat them 5-1 at home (28-22 shots ) and 3-2 in OT there (23-33 shots ), and we're the boring team?

It sounds like you are agreeing with Tom's statement. ::banana:: He wasn't denying that Cornell wins with this style in the ECAC, but he stated that it is boring. I agree with that. It has nothing to do with the result of either RPI-Cornell game.

You will have to explain why the statistics Jim cited would support Tom's thesis that Cornell is a "boring" team.  I am looking forward to reading said explanation.

[ursusminor]

RPI blog Without a Peer post about Cornell http://www.withoutapeer.com/2011/09/know-your-enemy-cornell.html.

Does Cornell play exceptionally boring hockey? Their fans will deny it to the death ("nothing boring about winning!"), but yes, they do.

So we beat them 5-1 at home (28-22 shots ) and 3-2 in OT there (23-33 shots ), and we're the boring team?

It sounds like you are agreeing with Tom's statement. ::banana:: He wasn't denying that Cornell wins with this style in the ECAC, but he stated that it is boring. I agree with that. It has nothing to do with the result of either RPI-Cornell game.

You will have to explain why the statistics Jim cited would support Tom's thesis that Cornell is a "boring" team.  I am looking forward to reading said explanation.

Those statistics neither support nor contradict Tom's thesis. One has been able to win in the ECAC by playing boring hockey, and Schafer has been demonstrating that thesis for many years. IMHO, there isn't much more to it. There is no direct correlation between playing a boring style and either winning or losing.

[ajh258]

RPI blog Without a Peer post about Cornell http://www.withoutapeer.com/2011/09/know-your-enemy-cornell.html.

Does Cornell play exceptionally boring hockey? Their fans will deny it to the death ("nothing boring about winning!"), but yes, they do.

So we beat them 5-1 at home (28-22 shots ) and 3-2 in OT there (23-33 shots ), and we're the boring team?

It sounds like you are agreeing with Tom's statement. ::banana:: He wasn't denying that Cornell wins with this style in the ECAC, but he stated that it is boring. I agree with that. It has nothing to do with the result of either RPI-Cornell game.

You will have to explain why the statistics Jim cited would support Tom's thesis that Cornell is a "boring" team.  I am looking forward to reading said explanation.

Those statistics neither support nor contradict Tom's thesis. One has been able to win in the ECAC by playing boring hockey, and Schafer has been demonstrating that thesis for many years. IMHO, there isn't much more to it. There is no direct correlation between playing a boring style and either winning or losing.

We're here to watch our hockey teams win, not to see whose figure skaters have the most exciting routine. Although I respect WAP's author for the work detailing ECAC and college hockey in general, most of us expect this kind of banter from RPI fans and I don't really give a **** what he thinks about how exciting we are.

Edit: Also, it seems he forgot that Garman has left the team and Iles will be the only starting goalie.

[drs48]

....seems as if you are taking this all too seriously....after all, it was a begrudgingly complimentary article. LGR!!

[Jim Hyla]

RPI blog Without a Peer post about Cornell http://www.withoutapeer.com/2011/09/know-your-enemy-cornell.html.

Does Cornell play exceptionally boring hockey? Their fans will deny it to the death ("nothing boring about winning!"), but yes, they do.

So we beat them 5-1 at home (28-22 shots ) and 3-2 in OT there (23-33 shots ), and we're the boring team?

It sounds like you are agreeing with Tom's statement. ::banana:: He wasn't denying that Cornell wins with this style in the ECAC, but he stated that it is boring. I agree with that. It has nothing to do with the result of either RPI-Cornell game.

You will have to explain why the statistics Jim cited would support Tom's thesis that Cornell is a "boring" team.  I am looking forward to reading said explanation.

Those statistics neither support nor contradict Tom's thesis. One has been able to win in the ECAC by playing boring hockey, and Schafer has been demonstrating that thesis for many years. IMHO, there isn't much more to it. There is no direct correlation between playing a boring style and either winning or losing.

You're correct those stats don't prove anything other that we won twice, completely outplaying them at home, including a breakaway goal, and then had an exciting comeback win away. And yes, you had to be there to know it was exciting, but stats can't tell all. I guess my hidden point was, are we really that boring when we outshoot, and markedly outscore them and then win in OT?

I'm reacting to people relaying that we play that old "clutch and grab" defensive style, although we no longer clutch and grab. Too many opponent fans can't realize that although we still play defense first, we are a lot more offensive and free skating than the 96, 97 and even 03 teams. Granted that Yale and maybe Union is a step ahead offensively, but take away Polacek's goals, and yes he's a great player, and RPI was really no different than us.

Eventually, some of them will realize that our style is evolving.

[ajh258]

....seems as if you are taking this all too seriously....after all, it was a begrudgingly complimentary article. LGR!!

I'm just fired up for this year. :-D Is it October yet???

[ugarte]

RPI blog Without a Peer post about Cornell http://www.withoutapeer.com/2011/09/know-your-enemy-cornell.html.

Does Cornell play exceptionally boring hockey? Their fans will deny it to the death ("nothing boring about winning!"), but yes, they do.

So we beat them 5-1 at home (28-22 shots ) and 3-2 in OT there (23-33 shots ), and we're the boring team?

It sounds like you are agreeing with Tom's statement. ::banana:: He wasn't denying that Cornell wins with this style in the ECAC, but he stated that it is boring. I agree with that. It has nothing to do with the result of either RPI-Cornell game.

You will have to explain why the statistics Jim cited would support Tom's thesis that Cornell is a "boring" team.  I am looking forward to reading said explanation.

Those statistics neither support nor contradict Tom's thesis. One has been able to win in the ECAC by playing boring hockey, and Schafer has been demonstrating that thesis for many years. IMHO, there isn't much more to it. There is no direct correlation between playing a boring style and either winning or losing.

You're correct those stats don't prove anything other that we won twice, completely outplaying them at home, including a breakaway goal, and then had an exciting comeback win away. And yes, you had to be there to know it was exciting, but stats can't tell all. I guess my hidden point was, are we really that boring when we outshoot, and markedly outscore them and then win in OT?

I'm reacting to people relaying that we play that old "clutch and grab" defensive style, although we no longer clutch and grab. Too many opponent fans can't realize that although we still play defense first, we are a lot more offensive and free skating than the 96, 97 and even 03 teams. Granted that Yale and maybe Union is a step ahead offensively, but take away Polacek's goals, and yes he's a great player, and RPI was really no different than us.

Eventually, some of them will realize that our style is evolving.

This is so defensive, Jim. It is almost as if you are deliberately missing the point.

A win is not a boring result. A comeback is, in the abstract, exciting. Neither one of these things is indicative of an exciting style of play. A breakaway goal is an exciting play but... not exactly what the team gameplans for. You are a Cornell fan, Cornell's style has been very successful, ergo, Cornell games are fun for you to watch. That does not mean a neutral observer - much less a rival - will find the style fun to watch. It is exactly what people said about the left wing lock that the Devils used to win the Cup.

Devils fans (read: unicorns) didn't care when other fans called the style boring. They pointed to the Cup and smiled.

[ursusminor]

RPI blog Without a Peer post about Cornell http://www.withoutapeer.com/2011/09/know-your-enemy-cornell.html.

Does Cornell play exceptionally boring hockey? Their fans will deny it to the death ("nothing boring about winning!"), but yes, they do.

So we beat them 5-1 at home (28-22 shots ) and 3-2 in OT there (23-33 shots ), and we're the boring team?

It sounds like you are agreeing with Tom's statement. ::banana:: He wasn't denying that Cornell wins with this style in the ECAC, but he stated that it is boring. I agree with that. It has nothing to do with the result of either RPI-Cornell game.

You will have to explain why the statistics Jim cited would support Tom's thesis that Cornell is a "boring" team.  I am looking forward to reading said explanation.

Those statistics neither support nor contradict Tom's thesis. One has been able to win in the ECAC by playing boring hockey, and Schafer has been demonstrating that thesis for many years. IMHO, there isn't much more to it. There is no direct correlation between playing a boring style and either winning or losing.

You're correct those stats don't prove anything other that we won twice, completely outplaying them at home, including a breakaway goal, and then had an exciting comeback win away. And yes, you had to be there to know it was exciting, but stats can't tell all. I guess my hidden point was, are we really that boring when we outshoot, and markedly outscore them and then win in OT?

I'm reacting to people relaying that we play that old "clutch and grab" defensive style, although we no longer clutch and grab. Too many opponent fans can't realize that although we still play defense first, we are a lot more offensive and free skating than the 96, 97 and even 03 teams. Granted that Yale and maybe Union is a step ahead offensively, but take away Polacek's goals, and yes he's a great player, and RPI was really no different than us.

Eventually, some of them will realize that our style is evolving.

This is so defensive, Jim. It is almost as if you are deliberately missing the point.

A win is not a boring result. A comeback is, in the abstract, exciting. Neither one of these things is indicative of an exciting style of play. A breakaway goal is an exciting play but... not exactly what the team gameplans for. You are a Cornell fan, Cornell's style has been very successful, ergo, Cornell games are fun for you to watch. That does not mean a neutral observer - much less a rival - will find the style fun to watch. It is exactly what people said about the left wing lock that the Devils used to win the Cup.

Devils fans (read: unicorns) didn't care when other fans called the style boring. They pointed to the Cup and smiled.

Well said. Now get to the FF and do the ECAC proud. Not that I wouldn't rather see RPI do that (or at least finally score a goal which they haven't done in over 10 periods of NCAA play).

With all of the reorganizing in the west, the ECAC should be better than the new WCHA. Success on the national stage by any of the ECAC teams should help overall.

[Jim Hyla]

RPI blog Without a Peer post about Cornell http://www.withoutapeer.com/2011/09/know-your-enemy-cornell.html.

Does Cornell play exceptionally boring hockey? Their fans will deny it to the death ("nothing boring about winning!"), but yes, they do.

So we beat them 5-1 at home (28-22 shots ) and 3-2 in OT there (23-33 shots ), and we're the boring team?

It sounds like you are agreeing with Tom's statement. ::banana:: He wasn't denying that Cornell wins with this style in the ECAC, but he stated that it is boring. I agree with that. It has nothing to do with the result of either RPI-Cornell game.

You will have to explain why the statistics Jim cited would support Tom's thesis that Cornell is a "boring" team.  I am looking forward to reading said explanation.

Those statistics neither support nor contradict Tom's thesis. One has been able to win in the ECAC by playing boring hockey, and Schafer has been demonstrating that thesis for many years. IMHO, there isn't much more to it. There is no direct correlation between playing a boring style and either winning or losing.

You're correct those stats don't prove anything other that we won twice, completely outplaying them at home, including a breakaway goal, and then had an exciting comeback win away. And yes, you had to be there to know it was exciting, but stats can't tell all. I guess my hidden point was, are we really that boring when we outshoot, and markedly outscore them and then win in OT?

I'm reacting to people relaying that we play that old "clutch and grab" defensive style, although we no longer clutch and grab. Too many opponent fans can't realize that although we still play defense first, we are a lot more offensive and free skating than the 96, 97 and even 03 teams. Granted that Yale and maybe Union is a step ahead offensively, but take away Polacek's goals, and yes he's a great player, and RPI was really no different than us.

Eventually, some of them will realize that our style is evolving.

This is so defensive, Jim. It is almost as if you are deliberately missing the point.

A win is not a boring result. A comeback is, in the abstract, exciting. Neither one of these things is indicative of an exciting style of play. A breakaway goal is an exciting play but... not exactly what the team gameplans for. You are a Cornell fan, Cornell's style has been very successful, ergo, Cornell games are fun for you to watch. That does not mean a neutral observer - much less a rival - will find the style fun to watch. It is exactly what people said about the left wing lock that the Devils used to win the Cup.

Devils fans (read: unicorns) didn't care when other fans called the style boring. They pointed to the Cup and smiled.

OK, how about this. My point was, and still is, that our style of play has changed. Anyone who has been on this forum for a while knows that I've argued with posters that we are not playing the old defense and see what happens style. As I said there are teams in the league that are further along with offensive skating, but we are not so far behind as to say that our style is completely different, and boring.

I'm not talking about just that we win, but when playing RPI, we not only beat them, but also were offensively aggressive. Ten years ago it would have been hard to say that.

Now, do I believe we need to go further to be successful, of course. Do I think, because of our defensive reputation, it has been harder for us to recruit the Polacek type player, absolutely. But I think the naysayers also need to examine their perspective and see that we are also changing. Maybe the recruits that we seem to be getting will allow it to become clear to everyone.

And yes I'm defensive in the way that if you have a position and someone disagrees you try and defend it. I don't feel defensive in feeling my position is weak and therefore aggressively defending it.

I doubt I'll convince the doubters, that doesn't mean I won't try and show them where I think they are wrong.

[Al DeFlorio]

This is so defensive, Jim. It is almost as if you are deliberately missing the point.

A win is not a boring result. A comeback is, in the abstract, exciting. Neither one of these things is indicative of an exciting style of play. A breakaway goal is an exciting play but... not exactly what the team gameplans for. You are a Cornell fan, Cornell's style has been very successful, ergo, Cornell games are fun for you to watch. That does not mean a neutral observer - much less a rival - will find the style fun to watch.

So...you are saying that if person A says something is boring--or expresses any other opinion about it--person B can't disagree and state why?  Isn't it possible someone's "boring" can be someone else's idea of "exquisitely executed?"  For example, watching the deliberate patterned offense and brilliant zone defense of Pete Carril's Princeton teams--which Kentucky fans might well think "boring"--delighted me, yet I'm bored by teams playing race-horse one-on-one basketball.

And the only "point" in the WAP blog that Jim refers to is that the blogger emphasized that Cornell's style is "boring."  What "point" is Jim "deliberately missing?"

If someone writes that Cornell hockey's style has been "defensive" it would be hard to disagree, although, as Jim points out, even that is changing over time--perhaps not as quickly as some might like.  "Defensive" describes the style.  "Boring" is one's opinion of it, and that's subject to legitimate disagreement.