Cornell-Ferris State In Progress

[Jordan 04]

I certainly agree with the optimism for next year, and the feeling that we got a lot more this year Than we had a right to expect.

That said, after 46 years of living and dying with Cornell Hockey, there are two major chronic problems that frustrate me no end.

First is the power play.  I'd have to yield to Trotsky or Beeeej or any others that have actual facts to refer to, but have we had any kind of power play success in the last 10-15 years?  Especially with the recent rules changes for major penalties for contact to the head or boarding from behind, there are going to be more and more opportunities and we really must become a threat.  The puck doesn't move fast enough, and our players are for the most part too static to cause a problem for teams that just want to pack it in.  Can we get some imagination to perhaps overload to one side to open up a backdoor play?  God knows we have enough film on it from Harvard and Union games.

The second problem is our shooting.  A large part of our shot differential problems is inaccuracy- we don't put the puck on net, even when we do shoot from in close.  Part of the problem is we often don't have anybody in front of the net.  When we do, he's too close to the net so the rebounds either get by too quickly or are out of reach.  I'd really like to see a slot player a little above the hashes who can move down closer to the crease if he needs to, but is still in a better position to get a rebound up over a sprawling goaltender.  Shooting accuracy while skating could be improved too.  Maybe using the skating treadmill with a goal set up at different angles or on a turntable?

None of these adjustments would sacrifice our tough defensive style, but it would sure help in those games where we get behind if we could be more of a scoring threat.

10-15 years includes seasons like those ending in 2002, 2003, and 2005, when Cornell's power play was among the best in the country (and I think the runaway #1 in 2002 - they were something ridiculous like 28% that year). 2008 and 2010 were decent, too - over 20%, which would be top 20 this year.

Over the years I've come to the conclusion that Cornell's real problem on the PP is that it's the same setup regardless of personnel - run the umbrella, move the puck low, cycle, either cross to the weak side or move up high and rotate around the perimeter. The back post plays from down low have been rare - apart from the 2003 team Cornell really hasn't had a combination capable of executing those passes on a regular basis, although I have high hopes for the next season or two. Their main model for scoring has been off the drive from the point - if there's a big shot opportunity from the top, they take it, otherwise they keep the puck moving and do the same thing on the other wing until they either get a golden opportunity or free up the shot from the top. This can be an effective power play strategy, but if you aren't making those cross-ice passes from down low you need the right guy at the top of the umbrella. The 2002 and 2003 teams were particularly dangerous because they had both.

For this year, I saw both NCAA games, and nothing else all season. From those two games it looked like Cornell's biggest problems were lack of traffic in front of the net and some stagnation at the top of the umbrella. It didn't seem to matter which unit was out there, the player at the top of the umbrella would frequently hold the puck instead of moving it. That little stall at the top just killed them - small windows of opportunity would close and then they'd have to spend some time moving the puck around at the blue line, which would either kick off another cycle down low or result in a clear for the PK. Either way, it would cost time and generate no real chances. I never really felt like the player at the top should have shot the puck in those situations, but crisp puck movement was critical and they weren't getting it. When they kept the puck moving and rotated it down low they got some chances - not always a shot on goal, but legitimate scoring opportunities where the box was collapsing in front and Cornell was able to swarm around the net. You have to give some credit to the opposition - Ferris St. in particular - for closing off a lot of options and keeping those windows of opportunity small. Cornell really didn't have any margin for error out there, so a tiny bobble or a brief hold to see if a shooting lane might open would cost a lot of time. The real kicker is you can't just blindly pass the puck around the perimeter, and I think where Cornell failed was in finding the right balance up high.

This is the kind of thing that's really easy to talk about from the comfort of one's own home, but it's damn hard to do, and if you don't have at least one guy who can do it consistently the umbrella might not be the right choice for that team. From a coaching perspective I don't know what the best option would be - there's a rather high cost to changing the setup because everyone has to learn it from scratch, including the coaches, and that takes time away from other areas for development.

Overall, I think the model has worked pretty well - the team has generally had strong PP performance in the "right" years. That's partly because having a strong PP improves your odds of winning, but I think it's also because the team is typically going through rebuilding cycles and a lot of these elements seem to come together at the same time. The other thing that you see is timing - the 2002 and 2003 teams were excellent because the top PP worked as a unit for, essentially, 3 straight years. In this year's NCAA games some of Cornell's best puck movement resulted in a routine save because the slot was empty and the goaltender had a clear view of the puck. That's a PP unit a little bit out of sync, and I'd expect that to improve over the course of another season.

It just seemed to me that this year we just didn't move the puck quickly enough on the PP, therefore rarely getting an unimpeded look at the net.  Watch the BC and Minnesota PP to see the difference. I think it's just that simple

To be fair, Ferris State's PK is really, really good.  I think they were something like 5th in the country.

Yes, but we were 9th in the ECAC in PP!

(Surely our viewing party wasn't only one noticing ESPN's team stats each night which would note our rank in the ECAC, and our opponent's rank in the NCAA).

[jtwcornell91]

Don't know that I can support them winning a championship, however, because I'm not sure they've "paid their dues."

I don't get this. Every year the slate is wiped clean: there's a reason the PWR doesn't incorporate historical data, for instance. If Union wins the national championship, I will congratulate them and ask why that wasn't Cornell instead.

There's also the lack of perspective on the part of their fans, which some noted last weekend.  That said, any ECAC team going as far as possible in the NCAAs can only be good for our conference as a whole, so Go Union!  (And if they get too full of themselves, they can jump to Hockey Least and we can grab RIT.)

[jtwcornell91]

But Lowell, why not root for Clarkson?  Small school, mostly engineers, passionate fans, good band, somewhat snakebit in the national tournament.  (Some of that due to us.)

I can't speak for Lowell, but personally I think it's too funny that they've never won the tournament to want that fact to change.

I've said it before: if Tech ever manages to win a title, they'd better ring that damn bell for 24 hours straight to celebrate.  (And I'll be happy to take a shift.)

[RichH]

My biggest frustration with this game wasn't the Power Play.  As somebody said, FSU has an outstanding PK unit, and our PP wasn't suddenly going to reinvent itself at this point in the season.  My biggest frustration was pretty much the entire first period on Saturday.  It looked like we were allergic to the puck.  We talked about the passing game vs. Michigan, but out of the gates on Saturday, there were at least a half-dozen *unpressured* passes that were just flubbed either by the passer or the receiver.  We didn't have a shot in the first 12 minutes (and were outshot 12-0) because we kept making unforced turnovers.  I'm OK staying calm and playing a measured style early, but they looked comatose.  Andy saved our bacon there.

Now fast-forward to the final 13 minutes (once the 2-1 dagger was fired in).  We. were. FLYING.  We had speed, pressure, energy, and opportunities.  I like to think that had we been more assertive in the first, and had potted one early...well, I don't know what would have happened.  Maybe scaling back the energy early on was the coaching staff's antidote for our 3rd period bonks.  Or we really did have a big Friday vs. Saturday issue this year.  And that's fine, but man...complete the easy passes, especially when you're not being pressured by the D.

The pressure to get the late equalizer redeemed them, and that late Esposito shot was a pea.  Nelson had to make a skilled snap save, and did.

[Josh '99]

I certainly agree with the optimism for next year, and the feeling that we got a lot more this year Than we had a right to expect.

That said, after 46 years of living and dying with Cornell Hockey, there are two major chronic problems that frustrate me no end.

First is the power play.  I'd have to yield to Trotsky or Beeeej or any others that have actual facts to refer to, but have we had any kind of power play success in the last 10-15 years?  Especially with the recent rules changes for major penalties for contact to the head or boarding from behind, there are going to be more and more opportunities and we really must become a threat.  The puck doesn't move fast enough, and our players are for the most part too static to cause a problem for teams that just want to pack it in.  Can we get some imagination to perhaps overload to one side to open up a backdoor play?  God knows we have enough film on it from Harvard and Union games.

The second problem is our shooting.  A large part of our shot differential problems is inaccuracy- we don't put the puck on net, even when we do shoot from in close.  Part of the problem is we often don't have anybody in front of the net.  When we do, he's too close to the net so the rebounds either get by too quickly or are out of reach.  I'd really like to see a slot player a little above the hashes who can move down closer to the crease if he needs to, but is still in a better position to get a rebound up over a sprawling goaltender.  Shooting accuracy while skating could be improved too.  Maybe using the skating treadmill with a goal set up at different angles or on a turntable?

None of these adjustments would sacrifice our tough defensive style, but it would sure help in those games where we get behind if we could be more of a scoring threat.

10-15 years includes seasons like those ending in 2002, 2003, and 2005, when Cornell's power play was among the best in the country (and I think the runaway #1 in 2002 - they were something ridiculous like 28% that year). 2008 and 2010 were decent, too - over 20%, which would be top 20 this year.

Over the years I've come to the conclusion that Cornell's real problem on the PP is that it's the same setup regardless of personnel - run the umbrella, move the puck low, cycle, either cross to the weak side or move up high and rotate around the perimeter. The back post plays from down low have been rare - apart from the 2003 team Cornell really hasn't had a combination capable of executing those passes on a regular basis, although I have high hopes for the next season or two. Their main model for scoring has been off the drive from the point - if there's a big shot opportunity from the top, they take it, otherwise they keep the puck moving and do the same thing on the other wing until they either get a golden opportunity or free up the shot from the top. This can be an effective power play strategy, but if you aren't making those cross-ice passes from down low you need the right guy at the top of the umbrella. The 2002 and 2003 teams were particularly dangerous because they had both.

For this year, I saw both NCAA games, and nothing else all season. From those two games it looked like Cornell's biggest problems were lack of traffic in front of the net and some stagnation at the top of the umbrella. It didn't seem to matter which unit was out there, the player at the top of the umbrella would frequently hold the puck instead of moving it. That little stall at the top just killed them - small windows of opportunity would close and then they'd have to spend some time moving the puck around at the blue line, which would either kick off another cycle down low or result in a clear for the PK. Either way, it would cost time and generate no real chances. I never really felt like the player at the top should have shot the puck in those situations, but crisp puck movement was critical and they weren't getting it. When they kept the puck moving and rotated it down low they got some chances - not always a shot on goal, but legitimate scoring opportunities where the box was collapsing in front and Cornell was able to swarm around the net. You have to give some credit to the opposition - Ferris St. in particular - for closing off a lot of options and keeping those windows of opportunity small. Cornell really didn't have any margin for error out there, so a tiny bobble or a brief hold to see if a shooting lane might open would cost a lot of time. The real kicker is you can't just blindly pass the puck around the perimeter, and I think where Cornell failed was in finding the right balance up high.

This is the kind of thing that's really easy to talk about from the comfort of one's own home, but it's damn hard to do, and if you don't have at least one guy who can do it consistently the umbrella might not be the right choice for that team. From a coaching perspective I don't know what the best option would be - there's a rather high cost to changing the setup because everyone has to learn it from scratch, including the coaches, and that takes time away from other areas for development.

Overall, I think the model has worked pretty well - the team has generally had strong PP performance in the "right" years. That's partly because having a strong PP improves your odds of winning, but I think it's also because the team is typically going through rebuilding cycles and a lot of these elements seem to come together at the same time. The other thing that you see is timing - the 2002 and 2003 teams were excellent because the top PP worked as a unit for, essentially, 3 straight years. In this year's NCAA games some of Cornell's best puck movement resulted in a routine save because the slot was empty and the goaltender had a clear view of the puck. That's a PP unit a little bit out of sync, and I'd expect that to improve over the course of another season.

It just seemed to me that this year we just didn't move the puck quickly enough on the PP, therefore rarely getting an unimpeded look at the net.  Watch the BC and Minnesota PP to see the difference. I think it's just that simple

To be fair, Ferris State's PK is really, really good.  I think they were something like 5th in the country.

Yes, but we were 9th in the ECAC in PP!

(Surely our viewing party wasn't only one noticing ESPN's team stats each night which would note our rank in the ECAC, and our opponent's rank in the NCAA).

Maybe they didn't want to embarrass us by noting that we were 41th in the NCAA in both power play and (uncharacteristically for a Schafer-coached team) penalty kill?

[jtn27]

(Surely our viewing party wasn't only one noticing ESPN's team stats each night which would note our rank in the ECAC, and our opponent's rank in the NCAA).

Maybe they didn't want to embarrass us by noting that we were 41th in the NCAA in both power play and (uncharacteristically for a Schafer-coached team) penalty kill?

I'm not sure which is more embarrassing, having it be shown that you're 41st in the country in power play or having your conference rank be shown while your opponent has its national rank shown.

[css228]

(Surely our viewing party wasn't only one noticing ESPN's team stats each night which would note our rank in the ECAC, and our opponent's rank in the NCAA).

Maybe they didn't want to embarrass us by noting that we were 41th in the NCAA in both power play and (uncharacteristically for a Schafer-coached team) penalty kill?

I'm not sure which is more embarrassing, having it be shown that you're 41st in the country in power play or having your conference rank be shown while your opponent has its national rank shown.

1st is embarrassing, 2nd just useless.

[Trotsky]

If you want a real contrast, jump from the Cornell/Ferris St. to a halfway decent NHL power play. The puck never sits. Even if the player doesn't shoot or pass immediately he moves with the puck and constantly changes the angle of attack.

This is one of the biggest contrasts of the NHL to college hockey.  Of course, in the NHL with the exception of a handful of cement heads everybody on the roster can stickhandle like a Hobey Baker candidate.

To make that work you need both perfect passing and perfect receiving.  Movement on the power-play is only as strong as its worst stick man.

We were at least trying to get the puck low to create the triple option of angle shot / low slot pass / quick pass back  to the point for the one-timer.  We needed Ferlin to twirl around in the corner a few times, shaking his man while the puck adhered magically to his stick until being released with a quick wrist.

D'Ags was so effective early in the year collapsing in and taking that hard shot, and then he stopped trying to make that play.  Maybe he telegraphs it and is just too great a risk for a block setting up the shorty break.

[jtn27]

(Surely our viewing party wasn't only one noticing ESPN's team stats each night which would note our rank in the ECAC, and our opponent's rank in the NCAA).

Maybe they didn't want to embarrass us by noting that we were 41th in the NCAA in both power play and (uncharacteristically for a Schafer-coached team) penalty kill?

I'm not sure which is more embarrassing, having it be shown that you're 41st in the country in power play or having your conference rank be shown while your opponent has its national rank shown.

1st is embarrassing, 2nd just useless.

That's true, but I think they're both pretty embarrassing.

[Scersk '97]

Don't know that I can support them winning a championship, however, because I'm not sure they've "paid their dues."

I don't get this. Every year the slate is wiped clean: there's a reason the PWR doesn't incorporate historical data, for instance. If Union wins the national championship, I will congratulate them and ask why that wasn't Cornell instead.

There's also the lack of perspective on the part of their fans, which some noted last weekend.  That said, any ECAC team going as far as possible in the NCAAs can only be good for our conference as a whole, so Go Union!  (And if they get too full of themselves, they can jump to Hockey Least and we can grab RIT.)

I was probably thinking something like this.  I want all fan bases to have the "oh-so-close" feeling, years in the dumps, and then a return to shining victory.  That trajectory inculcates humility and releases the maximum amount of joy in the end.  Union's players, of course, have "paid their dues"; my concern, as a fan of another team, is their fans and the possibility of future insufferable behavior.  So, I might have a very difficult time lining up my sentiments behind Union.

Ferris had a brief moment in '03--their first--but it faded.  Now they're back.  Good for them.  Hence, why I was able to cheer along with Wisco in '06 and BU in '09, even though both had already won it all.  Hell, I might've been able to cheer along with BC in '98 or '99, if I didn't already know that their fans were such douches.  But by the time they won in '01, I was tired of them, and I'm even more tired of them now.
 
Hence my comments about Clarkson or SLU upthread.  Even RPI, having won twice, can qualify as having a long-suffering fan base.  And, well, us.  We might not have really understood it in '67–'73 (or so), but we get now.  And if, in the end, we are rewarded (I hesitate to use the word "blessed" because of its religious connotations, but something closer to that) with another championship, I think the release of joy will be stupendous and stretch across a large percentage of hockey fandom.

So...  I'm tired of BC and the Goophers.  I'm wary of Union.   This is Union's first moment, and I don't think their fans, except for a very few, will truly appreciate it.
 
My sentiments, strangely enough, will probably line up behind Ferris State.

[css228]

Don't know that I can support them winning a championship, however, because I'm not sure they've "paid their dues."

I don't get this. Every year the slate is wiped clean: there's a reason the PWR doesn't incorporate historical data, for instance. If Union wins the national championship, I will congratulate them and ask why that wasn't Cornell instead.

There's also the lack of perspective on the part of their fans, which some noted last weekend.  That said, any ECAC team going as far as possible in the NCAAs can only be good for our conference as a whole, so Go Union!  (And if they get too full of themselves, they can jump to Hockey Least and we can grab RIT.)

I was probably thinking something like this.  I want all fan bases to have the "oh-so-close" feeling, years in the dumps, and then a return to shining victory.  That trajectory inculcates humility and releases the maximum amount of joy in the end.  Union's players, of course, have "paid their dues"; my concern, as a fan of another team, is their fans and the possibility of future insufferable behavior.  So, I might have a very difficult time lining up my sentiments behind Union.

Ferris had a brief moment in '03--their first--but it faded.  Now they're back.  Good for them.  Hence, why I was able to cheer along with Wisco in '06 and BU in '09, even though both had already won it all.  Hell, I might've been able to cheer along with BC in '98 or '99, if I didn't already know that their fans were such douches.  But by the time they won in '01, I was tired of them, and I'm even more tired of them now.
 
Hence my comments about Clarkson or SLU upthread.  Even RPI, having won twice, can qualify as having a long-suffering fan base.  And, well, us.  We might not have really understood it in '67–'73 (or so), but we get now.  And if, in the end, we are rewarded (I hesitate to use the word "blessed" because of its religious connotations, but something closer to that) with another championship, I think the release of joy will be stupendous and stretch across a large percentage of hockey fandom.

So...  I'm tired of BC and the Goophers.  I'm wary of Union.   This is Union's first moment, and I don't think their fans, except for a very few, will truly appreciate it.
 
My sentiments, strangely enough, will probably line up behind Ferris State.

I know that they haven't bee major rivals for decades, but doesn't rooting for BU make you a heretic among the Faithful?

[Aaron M. Griffin]

I don't mind Union making the Frozen Four (although I would obviously prefer it be us) but I don't want them to become the first ECAC team to make the final since 1991 (correction coming in 3... 2...)

Per your request (otherwise I wouldn't have mentioned it), 1990 Colgate made the national title game. Harvard won in 1989. Both represent the last time an ECAC team earned a berth in the NCAA title game and the last time that an ECAC team won the NCAA title respectively.

[jtn27]

I don't mind Union making the Frozen Four (although I would obviously prefer it be us) but I don't want them to become the first ECAC team to make the final since 1991 (correction coming in 3... 2...)

Per your request (otherwise I wouldn't have mentioned it), 1990 Colgate made the national title game. Harvard won in 1989. Both represent the last time an ECAC team earned a berth in the NCAA title game and the last time that an ECAC team won the NCAA title respectively.

Took long enough. I thought someone would have corrected me by now. I was beginning to think 1991 was correct.

[Aaron M. Griffin]

I don't mind Union making the Frozen Four (although I would obviously prefer it be us) but I don't want them to become the first ECAC team to make the final since 1991 (correction coming in 3... 2...)

Per your request (otherwise I wouldn't have mentioned it), 1990 Colgate made the national title game. Harvard won in 1989. Both represent the last time an ECAC team earned a berth in the NCAA title game and the last time that an ECAC team won the NCAA title respectively.

Took long enough. I thought someone would have corrected me by now. I was beginning to think 1991 was correct.

Haha figured I would. It wasn't until my senior year that I got invested in learning the history of the ECAC beyond Cornell's role in its history. So, it's more of a sharing the wealth (of knowledge) opinion in my mind, not correcting you. Also, at AC, I was next to a family of Colgate alumni during the Colgate-Union game and one member of the group was wearing NCAA 1990 hat from when he was a student (I assume based on age) and Colgate made the appearance in the 1990 NCAA title game, so that sticks with me quite easily too.

[RichH]

I was probably thinking something like this.  I want all fan bases to have the "oh-so-close" feeling, years in the dumps, and then a return to shining victory.  That trajectory inculcates humility and releases the maximum amount of joy in the end.  Union's players, of course, have "paid their dues"; my concern, as a fan of another team, is their fans and the possibility of future insufferable behavior.  So, I might have a very difficult time lining up my sentiments behind Union.

Yeah, this. Whenever I'm watching the clutter of equipment strewn about in celebration after the NCAA Final, I often say "good for them." The "them" refers to both the players, coaches and the longtime fans.  It's silly, but I think championships also belong to the emotionally invested fans of each program.  And I like to see those fans understand about how difficult and rare it is to reach the mountaintop.  I want to see the winning fan section jumping on top of each other in ecstasy, not standing up and giving a "rah, team...good show" golf clap.

Example: My senior year was 1996.  My introduction to CU hockey was the ridiculously wretched 1992-93 season. I saw them miss the playoffs altogether (we won our last game!), and the following two years get waxed in the QF round by Clarkson and Harvard. So the '96 ECAC Championship was just a magical run to me.  The members of the Class of '99 I knew were Freshmen when I was a Senior. After the 1997 Championship, a few '99ers started half-joking "what's the big deal about winning the Whitelaw? We win every year.  What's the big deal about beating Harvard? Har har..."  

Winning without pain leads to entitlement.