CU Hockey-Preseason

[CAS]

I agree with the words of the great Al Davis - Just win baby!
I'm struck that Cornell hasn't finished below the top 4 in the ECAC since 1999.
We're currently attracting many oustanding recruits.  In Coach Schafer I trust!

[Chris '03]

I agree with the words of the great Al Davis - Just win baby!
I'm struck that Cornell hasn't finished below the top 4 in the ECAC since 1999.
We're currently attracting many oustanding recruits.  In Coach Schafer I trust!

Me too, since that's not true.

http://collegehockeystats.net/9900/standings/all
http://www.ecachockey.com/men/2007-08/standings

I think this thread is missing a discussion of whether B. Nash was lazy, how Murray sucked at receiving passes, and how [first year goalie] is a big step down from [dearly departed goalie] and how horrible it is. Then everyone will be warmed up for the season.

[Trotsky]

I think this thread is missing a discussion of whether B. Nash was lazy, how Murray sucked at receiving passes, and how [first year goalie] is a big step down from [dearly departed goalie] and how horrible it is. Then everyone will be warmed up for the season.

Don't forget today's students are a much worse crowd than [poster's class], Schafer can't change with the times, and the powerplay needs to shoot more.

[Robb]

Me too, since that's not true.

What is true is that over this time, Cornell has by far been the best team in the ECAC regular season.  Average finish of the last 12 seasons:


2.75   Cornell
5.08   Harvard
5.33   Dartmouth
6.00   Clarkson
6.08   St. Lawrence
6.33   Colgate
6.83   Yale
7.17   Quinnipiac
7.17   Union
7.25   Princeton
7.42   RPI
9.25   Brown
9.83   Vermont

And also the most consistent.  Standard deviation of finishing place:

1.42   Cornell
1.72   Quinnipiac
2.71   Harvard
2.84   RPI
2.99   Vermont
3.08   Brown
3.14   Princeton
3.20   Dartmouth
3.30   Union
3.58   St. Lawrence
3.72   Clarkson
3.80   Colgate
3.93   Yale

Of course, it's much easier to have a lower standard dev if you're always at one end or the other...

[ursusminor]

I agree with the words of the great Al Davis - Just win baby!
I'm struck that Cornell hasn't finished below the top 4 in the ECAC since 1999.
We're currently attracting many oustanding recruits.  In Coach Schafer I trust!

Me too, since that's not true.

http://collegehockeystats.net/9900/standings/all
http://www.ecachockey.com/men/2007-08/standings

Every other source that I looked at shows Cornell with a 12-9-1 record in 07-08, giving them a tie in points for 4th place. An ECAC game vs. Yale ended in a tie not a Yale victory. As to 99-00, your source also shows a 4th place tie.

[KeithK]

Every other source that I looked at shows Cornell with a 12-9-1 record in 07-08, giving them a tie in points for 4th place. An ECAC game vs. Yale ended in a tie not a Yale victory. As to 99-00, your source also shows a 4th place tie.

Union and Cornell both finished with 25 points in 07-08 but Union won the tiebreaker (H2h 4-0).  From a certain POV that means Cornell finished 5th behind Union.  Depends whether you mean top 4 based on points or top 4 playoff seed.

[ursusminor]

Every other source that I looked at shows Cornell with a 12-9-1 record in 07-08, giving them a tie in points for 4th place. An ECAC game vs. Yale ended in a tie not a Yale victory. As to 99-00, your source also shows a 4th place tie.

Union and Cornell both finished with 25 points in 07-08 but Union won the tiebreaker (H2h 4-0).  From a certain POV that means Cornell finished 5th behind Union.  Depends whether you mean top 4 based on points or top 4 playoff seed.

Certainly correct and WaP said the same thing.

[ugarte]

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?"

(1) Carrill's Princeton teams were boring. That was the point of those teams. It was exciting to watch David drag down Goliath and there is a bit of fun in the snobbery of truly appreciating a boring thing done well but, I repeat, being boring was the point.

(2) That Person A finds something boring doesn't make Person B wrong when he says "it isn't boring!" It does mean he is wrong when he says "You are wrong, A! It isn't boring!" Jim isn't making a "correction." He was trying to prove an opinion wrong by presenting an opinion. Which is pretty defensive. So typical of a Cornell fan. Always with the defense. How boring.

(3) The WAP preview, while largely positive, was also largely a joke. It was highly complimentary of the talent and success of the Big Red, predicted more of the same but within the context of insulting Cornell over and over. It was obvious trolling, like the end of point (2). Responding to it as if it were meant to be taken seriously is textbook "missing the point."

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 think it is fair to say that we were never exactly this simple a team. What we were, and I think still are, is a team that has a grinder's heart. Some people don't like that. I look at the banners and smile. Let 'em whine, Jim.

[Jim Hyla]

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?"

(1) Carrill's Princeton teams were boring. That was the point of those teams. It was exciting to watch David drag down Goliath and there is a bit of fun in the snobbery of truly appreciating a boring thing done well but, I repeat, being boring was the point.

(2) That Person A finds something boring doesn't make Person B wrong when he says "it isn't boring!" It does mean he is wrong when he says "You are wrong, A! It isn't boring!" Jim isn't making a "correction." He was trying to prove an opinion wrong by presenting an opinion. Which is pretty defensive. So typical of a Cornell fan. Always with the defense. How boring.

(3) The WAP preview, while largely positive, was also largely a joke. It was highly complimentary of the talent and success of the Big Red, predicted more of the same but within the context of insulting Cornell over and over. It was obvious trolling, like the end of point (2). Responding to it as if it were meant to be taken seriously is textbook "missing the point."

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 think it is fair to say that we were never exactly this simple a team. What we were, and I think still are, is a team that has a grinder's heart. Some people don't like that. I look at the banners and smile. Let 'em whine, Jim.

Actually I was trying to prove an opinion wrong by presenting some facts. Those facts show, at least to me, that we're different from our "old boring" teams. Yes, I can't easily prove someone's opinion wrong with a few facts, but outshooting their team, and blowing them away by score, must have some value in getting rid of the old defensive boring style idea.

Having watched CU for almost 50 years, I can say that we've had multiple styles over the years. No one would say Harkness's teams were boring but they were grounded in good defense. We had quite a mix in the 25 years in between then and Schafer. The 80's could be largely forgotten (at least compared to before and after), even though we had some exciting skaters like Nieuwendyk. When Schafer came he started with boring winning hockey. His first two championships were definitely boring, but he got the best he could with the talent he had. I think that's where we started to get the boring label. However he's refined it markedly over the years. I don't think anyone other than a CU hater would say 2003 was a boring team.

I still contend that since then Schafer has been expanding the offensive flow, and that we are a much different team than his first 5 years. I know I've jumped on this before, but I do believe if someone objectively looks at our teams we have markedly changed.

So you don't think I've proven it, that's OK, I'm still happy both watching and posting.

[Al DeFlorio]

(1) Carrill's Princeton teams were boring. That was the point of those teams. It was exciting to watch David drag down Goliath and there is a bit of fun in the snobbery of truly appreciating a boring thing done well but, I repeat, being boring was the point.

Your first two sentences are, in my opinion, sheer nonsense.  The point of those teams was to beat more athletic teams with the exquisite execution of brilliant offensive and defensive systems.  You may have found that boring, but someone who appreciates well-played basketball would not.  

My sense is that now little old you are the one being "defensive.";-)

[ugarte]

(1) Carrill's Princeton teams were boring. That was the point of those teams. It was exciting to watch David drag down Goliath and there is a bit of fun in the snobbery of truly appreciating a boring thing done well but, I repeat, being boring was the point.

Your first two sentences are, in my opinion, sheer nonsense.  The point of those teams was to beat more athletic teams with the exquisite execution of brilliant offensive and defensive systems.  You may have found that boring, but someone who appreciates well-played basketball would not.  

I don't know why you bothered with engineering. You should have done PR for boring companies.

[Trotsky]

First spat of the new season!  

[Jeff Hopkins '82]

First spat of the new season!  

Cat fight!!!!

[ugarte]

First spat of the new season!  

Cat fight!!!!

See? Exciting. Because I'm always on offense.*

Claws retracted.

* I leave it to others to judge if I am offensive.

[css228]

Beyond excited for the season. Seat selection tonight, hoping low 200s is good enough for B. If not I don't mind showing up 20-30 minutes before each game to be on the Section A boards.