2012-13 Polls Men & Women

[jtn27]

It is an open question in my mind as to whether we want to pay the price to move up on the list.

I am curious what you mean by this.

Here are a few. I think you will see why I made the comment

New Coach and Staff
Build a Hockey Pleasure Palace
Lower Academic Standards for Recruits
Leave the Ivy League
Offer Athletic Scholarships
Dig up Ned and see if we could get a little DNA

So, we are what we are a middling good hockey program. In a good year we are Tournament fodder. I am not sure we want to pay the price to be like N.DAK or BU or Ferris.

I don't really think a new coach and staff is a steep price to pay for more success. In fact, I think it's about the cheapest way to get more success. Obviously, the other stuff ranges from somewhat to completely objectionable (or impossible in the case of the last one), but think a lot of people would be more than happy if firing Schafer resulted in a national success (for the record, I don't think it would).

[Jim Hyla]

It is an open question in my mind as to whether we want to pay the price to move up on the list.

I am curious what you mean by this.

Here are a few. I think you will see why I made the comment

New Coach and Staff
Build a Hockey Pleasure Palace
Lower Academic Standards for Recruits
Leave the Ivy League
Offer Athletic Scholarships
Dig up Ned and see if we could get a little DNA

So, we are what we are a middling good hockey program. In a good year we are Tournament fodder. I am not sure we want to pay the price to be like N.DAK or BU or Ferris.

I don't really think a new coach and staff is a steep price to pay for more success. In fact, I think it's about the cheapest way to get more success. Obviously, the other stuff ranges from somewhat to completely objectionable (or impossible in the case of the last one), but think a lot of people would be more than happy if firing Schafer resulted in a national success (for the record, I don't think it would).

Thanks for adding that. Keeping a good/great coach in the ECAC, say nothing of Ivy, is tough. Just look at Union. The first year of great sucess, he's off to Providence. Where he's doing a good job, so far.

[Trotsky]

We are not "tournament fodder."  During Schafer's tenure we are 8-9 in the NCAAs.  The rest of the current conference membership is 7-27 over that span.

[RichH]

It is an open question in my mind as to whether we want to pay the price to move up on the list.

I am curious what you mean by this.

Here are a few. I think you will see why I made the comment

New Coach and Staff
Build a Hockey Pleasure Palace
Lower Academic Standards for Recruits
Leave the Ivy League
Offer Athletic Scholarships
Dig up Ned and see if we could get a little DNA

So, we are what we are a middling good hockey program. In a good year we are Tournament fodder. I am not sure we want to pay the price to be like N.DAK or BU or Ferris.

I don't really think a new coach and staff is a steep price to pay for more success. In fact, I think it's about the cheapest way to get more success. Obviously, the other stuff ranges from somewhat to completely objectionable (or impossible in the case of the last one), but think a lot of people would be more than happy if firing Schafer resulted in a national success (for the record, I don't think it would).

Yep. It's a simple equation, really. New coaching staff = instant success. Just ask the Cornell football team.

[Towerroad]

We are not "tournament fodder."  During Schafer's tenure we are 8-9 in the NCAAs.  The rest of the current conference membership is 7-27 over that span.

Let me be clear what I mean by Tournament Fodder. Tournament fodder is a team that when they make the tournament plays in the regionals and then goes home. That is us for better and worse. We are not a program that makes the Frozen Four 2 or 3 years out of 10.

We seem very schizophrenic, we want to be thought of as a serious program with national ambitions but when we compare our selves we always look at the ECAC. There is nobody from the ECAC on my top 10 list. Union is the highest at #13. If we want to be honest with ourselves AND want to think about Cornell Hockey as a serious national program then we need to start comparing ourselves to the best programs in the nation and that those are not the ones we play against in our league.

[css228]

We are not "tournament fodder."  During Schafer's tenure we are 8-9 in the NCAAs.  The rest of the current conference membership is 7-27 over that span.

Let me be clear what I mean by Tournament Fodder. Tournament fodder is a team that when they make the tournament plays in the regionals and then goes home. That is us for better and worse. We are not a program that makes the Frozen Four 2 or 3 years out of 10.

We seem very schizophrenic, we want to be thought of as a serious program with national ambitions but when we compare our selves we always look at the ECAC. There is nobody from the ECAC on my top 10 list. Union is the highest at #13. If we want to be honest with ourselves AND want to think about Cornell Hockey as a serious national program then we need to start comparing ourselves to the best programs in the nation and that those are not the ones we play against in our league.

Playoffs? Don't talk about playoffs. I just hope we can win a game.

[Trotsky]

If we want to be honest with ourselves AND want to think about Cornell Hockey as a serious national program then we need to start comparing ourselves to the best programs in the nation and that those are not the ones we play against in our league.

It doesn't follow that if we compare ourselves against the ECAC we can't also compare ourselves against the NCAA.  We are 8-9 against opponents in the NCAAs since 1996.  None of those teams were from the ECAC.  That's a rough 50/50 against the very best opposition college hockey can provide.  Not dominant, but not shabby by any stretch.

The comparison with the rest of the ECAC, and with the other Ivies in particular, provides the only meaningful standard for what is possible given the additional academic hurdles for those subsets of teams.  We will never be North Dakota and accept every athlete who can sign his name.  We will never be BC and hand every freshman a degree.  The only other schools with the degree of rigor that we impose on our student-athletes are the other ECAC members, and you get an idea of what's possible when you look at their success.  We are blowing that standard out of the water.

I'd LOVE to see us win an NCAA title -- I'm one of the oldest people on the board who hasn't seen that, and note to team: I'm not getting any younger!    But I also don't think that sticking your chest out and bellowing "We can do better!" constitutes a CONOPS, and I have not seen one tangible suggestion about what we could be doing that we are not, short of turning the meteorology students loose on improving the Ithaca weather.

[Weder]

We are not "tournament fodder."  During Schafer's tenure we are 8-9 in the NCAAs.  The rest of the current conference membership is 7-27 over that span.

Let me be clear what I mean by Tournament Fodder. Tournament fodder is a team that when they make the tournament plays in the regionals and then goes home. That is us for better and worse. We are not a program that makes the Frozen Four 2 or 3 years out of 10.

We seem very schizophrenic, we want to be thought of as a serious program with national ambitions but when we compare our selves we always look at the ECAC. There is nobody from the ECAC on my top 10 list. Union is the highest at #13. If we want to be honest with ourselves AND want to think about Cornell Hockey as a serious national program then we need to start comparing ourselves to the best programs in the nation and that those are not the ones we play against in our league.

Playoffs? Don't talk about playoffs. I just hope we can win a game.

You play. To win. The game.

[RichH]

We are not "tournament fodder."  During Schafer's tenure we are 8-9 in the NCAAs.  The rest of the current conference membership is 7-27 over that span.

Let me be clear what I mean by Tournament Fodder. Tournament fodder is a team that when they make the tournament plays in the regionals and then goes home. That is us for better and worse. We are not a program that makes the Frozen Four 2 or 3 years out of 10.

By that definition half of every Frozen Four is taken up by "tournament fodder." I know it's a cliche, but once you get to the NCAA, "anything can happen." That time of year, luck matters more.  Those "bounces of the puck" happen more. Just about all the players/teams are playing at the top of their game and emptying the tank. You regularly see an RIT or Bemidji or Ferris slip in.  2003 is considered to be matter-of-factly "of course we made it that year," but I bet BC fans see 2003 differently. One weird bounce in either OT, and that's just another regional failure. I bet if you watched the '05 and '06 OTs, you would see a handful of times it could have gone the other way.

You make it sound like all we have is a regional final "ceiling" because that's all the coaching can give us. Since Schafer took the reins, Cornell has made seven NCAA regional finals. In six of them, the score has been tied in the 3rd period. Additionally, they've played in six overtime periods with a trip to the FF on the line, but the hypothesis is that it's a coaching problem?  Think about it...a Schafer team advances to the regional final in 40% of his seasons here. I would bet every team in the country would sign up for that opportunity from this day forward.  All I  can ask of a coach is give a team the opportunity to go that deep, then it's up to the players to come through.

Look, my freshman year, we didn't even make the conference playoffs (one of three teams that didn't). Most of my college career, I dreamed about how amazing it would be just to MAKE the NCAAs.  This coach has done that over half the time.  How many coaches can say that?

[Robb]

I bet if you watched the '05 and '06 OTs, you would see a handful of times it could have gone the other way.

Indeed.  And if that had been the case, but Cornell went on to lose the national semifinals in both of those years, then merely making the Frozen Four would be the "new normal" and people would be beeatching that Schafer couldn't break THAT ceiling to win the title.

[css228]

I bet if you watched the '05 and '06 OTs, you would see a handful of times it could have gone the other way.

Indeed.  And if that had been the case, but Cornell went on to lose the national semifinals in both of those years, then merely making the Frozen Four would be the "new normal" and people would be beeatching that Schafer couldn't break THAT ceiling to win the title.

No, right now I'm beeatching that he is presiding over a team that nearly made the Frozen Four last year, but is now all but in the bottom four of the ECAC, despite only losing four players to graduation.

[Chris '03]

I bet if you watched the '05 and '06 OTs, you would see a handful of times it could have gone the other way.

Indeed.  And if that had been the case, but Cornell went on to lose the national semifinals in both of those years, then merely making the Frozen Four would be the "new normal" and people would be beeatching that Schafer couldn't break THAT ceiling to win the title.

No, right now I'm beeatching that he is presiding over a team that nearly made the Frozen Four last year, but is now all but in the bottom four of the ECAC, despite only losing four players to graduation.

I think you mean "a team that barely made the ncaa tournament, got lucky to have beat a no. 1 seed before losing a regional final few thought they would make and us now struggling in a conference with a few teams that are at least as good if not clearly better than they are."

Last year's team wasn't exactly the second coming of 1970.

[Towerroad]

We are not "tournament fodder."  During Schafer's tenure we are 8-9 in the NCAAs.  The rest of the current conference membership is 7-27 over that span.

Let me be clear what I mean by Tournament Fodder. Tournament fodder is a team that when they make the tournament plays in the regionals and then goes home. That is us for better and worse. We are not a program that makes the Frozen Four 2 or 3 years out of 10.

By that definition half of every Frozen Four is taken up by "tournament fodder." I know it's a cliche, but once you get to the NCAA, "anything can happen." That time of year, luck matters more.  Those "bounces of the puck" happen more. Just about all the players/teams are playing at the top of their game and emptying the tank. You regularly see an RIT or Bemidji or Ferris slip in.  2003 is considered to be matter-of-factly "of course we made it that year," but I bet BC fans see 2003 differently. One weird bounce in either OT, and that's just another regional failure. I bet if you watched the '05 and '06 OTs, you would see a handful of times it could have gone the other way.

You make it sound like all we have is a regional final "ceiling" because that's all the coaching can give us. Since Schafer took the reins, Cornell has made seven NCAA regional finals. In six of them, the score has been tied in the 3rd period. Additionally, they've played in six overtime periods with a trip to the FF on the line, but the hypothesis is that it's a coaching problem?  Think about it...a Schafer team advances to the regional final in 40% of his seasons here. I would bet every team in the country would sign up for that opportunity from this day forward.  All I  can ask of a coach is give a team the opportunity to go that deep, then it's up to the players to come through.

Look, my freshman year, we didn't even make the conference playoffs (one of three teams that didn't). Most of my college career, I dreamed about how amazing it would be just to MAKE the NCAAs.  This coach has done that over half the time.  How many coaches can say that?

I have a particular aversion to the "anything can happen", "bounce of the puck" argument. Sure there is a random component and there is a reason why the games are played. The random component works in our favor just as much as it works against us. I do not believe in bad luck or good luck. Every bad bounce for us is a good bounce for our opponent and vice versa.

The reason I did the analysis was to try and understand where our program stands in the recent past. I come to the following conclusions:

1. The definition of a successful Cornell season is making it to the regional championship game.

2. Our program in recent years is reasonably ranked at about #15 nationally. We are not among college hockey's elites.

3. The only other comparable team that plays under the same constraint we do is Yale and they have the same 5 yr NCAA record we do.

4. The Coach may in fact be doing as well as can be reasonably be expected given the constraints (Academic, Scholarship, Number of Games, League) that he operates under. Certainly there is no example of any other coach in the Ivy's in recent time that has produced more.

This years team performance to date is well off where our long term expectations should be. Since the Coach recruits the players, trains the players, sets the roster and lines, determines the style of play, and is paid to produce results he should be held accountable for this deviation from our longer term performance.

Like everyone on this page I hope the coach rights the ship. If not, I for one would not remove him this year. His long term record deserves the benefit of the doubt. Two years of this type of performance, however, would be a different story.

[MattS]

We are not "tournament fodder."  During Schafer's tenure we are 8-9 in the NCAAs.  The rest of the current conference membership is 7-27 over that span.

Let me be clear what I mean by Tournament Fodder. Tournament fodder is a team that when they make the tournament plays in the regionals and then goes home. That is us for better and worse. We are not a program that makes the Frozen Four 2 or 3 years out of 10.

By that definition half of every Frozen Four is taken up by "tournament fodder." I know it's a cliche, but once you get to the NCAA, "anything can happen." That time of year, luck matters more.  Those "bounces of the puck" happen more. Just about all the players/teams are playing at the top of their game and emptying the tank. You regularly see an RIT or Bemidji or Ferris slip in.  2003 is considered to be matter-of-factly "of course we made it that year," but I bet BC fans see 2003 differently. One weird bounce in either OT, and that's just another regional failure. I bet if you watched the '05 and '06 OTs, you would see a handful of times it could have gone the other way.

You make it sound like all we have is a regional final "ceiling" because that's all the coaching can give us. Since Schafer took the reins, Cornell has made seven NCAA regional finals. In six of them, the score has been tied in the 3rd period. Additionally, they've played in six overtime periods with a trip to the FF on the line, but the hypothesis is that it's a coaching problem?  Think about it...a Schafer team advances to the regional final in 40% of his seasons here. I would bet every team in the country would sign up for that opportunity from this day forward.  All I  can ask of a coach is give a team the opportunity to go that deep, then it's up to the players to come through.

Look, my freshman year, we didn't even make the conference playoffs (one of three teams that didn't). Most of my college career, I dreamed about how amazing it would be just to MAKE the NCAAs.  This coach has done that over half the time.  How many coaches can say that?

I have a particular aversion to the "anything can happen", "bounce of the puck" argument. Sure there is a random component and there is a reason why the games are played. The random component works in our favor just as much as it works against us. I do not believe in bad luck or good luck. Every bad bounce for us is a good bounce for our opponent and vice versa.

The reason I did the analysis was to try and understand where our program stands in the recent past. I come to the following conclusions:

1. The definition of a successful Cornell season is making it to the regional championship game.

2. Our program in recent years is reasonably ranked at about #15 nationally. We are not among college hockey's elites.

3. The only other comparable team that plays under the same constraint we do is Yale and they have the same 5 yr NCAA record we do.

4. The Coach may in fact be doing as well as can be reasonably be expected given the constraints (Academic, Scholarship, Number of Games, League) that he operates under. Certainly there is no example of any other coach in the Ivy's in recent time that has produced more.

This years team performance to date is well off where our long term expectations should be. Since the Coach recruits the players, trains the players, sets the roster and lines, determines the style of play, and is paid to produce results he should be held accountable for this deviation from our longer term performance.

Like everyone on this page I hope the coach rights the ship. If not, I for one would not remove him this year. His long term record deserves the benefit of the doubt. Two years of this type of performance, however, would be a different story.

The people near me in section M at Lynah are starting to make noises that a new coach should be brought in. I don't really have a strong feeling either way, but my question to them when considering a coaching change is: "Who can Cornell get that would do a better job?"

Seriously, who can CU lure in that would deal with the restrictions mentioned, accept the pay that would be offered (I assume that the compensation would be much less the say BU, Michigan, etc.) and can be reasonably expected do a better job? I can't think of anyone off the top of my head that I think would be willing to accept the job and that I would prefer to be the coach.

[Ben]

I bet if you watched the '05 and '06 OTs, you would see a handful of times it could have gone the other way.

Indeed.  And if that had been the case, but Cornell went on to lose the national semifinals in both of those years, then merely making the Frozen Four would be the "new normal" and people would be beeatching that Schafer couldn't break THAT ceiling to win the title.

No, right now I'm beeatching that he is presiding over a team that nearly made the Frozen Four last year, but is now all but in the bottom four of the ECAC, despite only losing four players to graduation.

I think you mean "a team that barely made the ncaa tournament, got lucky to have beat a no. 1 seed before losing a regional final few thought they would make and us now struggling in a conference with a few teams that are at least as good if not clearly better than they are."

Last year's team wasn't exactly the second coming of 1970.

How about "a team that missed out on the regular season title by two points last season and will be lucky to get a home playoff game if they keep as they have been". Other teams have gotten better, and we've gotten worse.