CU @ Colgate 2/8/14

[Jim Hyla]

Question for anyone who watched the Colgate video last night. Was it choppy? I've been trying to watch and capture the game. It's very jumpy, just stops, and won't reload.

[Ronald '09]

Question for anyone who watched the Colgate video last night. Was it choppy? I've been trying to watch and capture the game. It's very jumpy, just stops, and won't reload.

Mine froze every five or six seconds and it was so unwatchable I swithed to Jason's audio after a few minutes. Thought it might be my internet connection though. If other people had the same problem, I guess not.

[Trotsky]

Question for anyone who watched the Colgate video last night. Was it choppy? I've been trying to watch and capture the game. It's very jumpy, just stops, and won't reload.

Mine froze every five or six seconds and it was so unwatchable I swithed to Jason's audio after a few minutes. Thought it might be my internet connection though. If other people had the same problem, I guess not.

I had the same problem.  It didn't freeze, it actually would reset for 2-3 second intervals.  It was unwatchable here too.

[KGR11]

We will find out what the team is made of in the next 2 weeks.

After watching the third period last evening, I'm concerned.    They clearly lost their composure.   Yes, the officials were putting the screws to them.   But, the good teams have to stay composed during those times.    Schafer's last few teams do not seem to possess that mental toughness.    That's part of the discipline that Schafer is either no longer recruiting or no longer demanding of his players or both.    

The product on the ice shows it.

In an attempt to judge the mental toughness of different Cornell squads, I pulled some data from collegehockeystats.net.  I think there are three measures that can measure toughness that are readily available: win% when giving up the first goal, win% when losing at the first intermission, and win% when losing at the second intermission. I think we're doing all right. We have a 40% win percentage when losing after the first period, which is our highest mark in almost a decade.  Losing after 2 periods, our win% is 27.8%, which is our best mark since the 08-09 season (granted, only slightly higher than 09-10).  When we don't score first, however, we win 40% of the time, which is about average going back to '07-'08.  I wish that were higher.

I agree that last night definitely showed a lack of composure, but I think mental toughness is a strength this year, as compared to teams of recent past.

Season      First Goal
1999-2000      48%
2000-2001      50%
2001-2002      53%
2002-2003      69%
2003-2004      41%
2004-2005      63%
2005-2006      46%
2006-2007      21%
2007-2008      17%
2008-2009      50%
2009-2010      45%
2010-2011      25%
2011-2012      50%
2012-2013      28%
2013-2014      40.0%

Season      First Int
1999-2000      30%
2000-2001      45%
2001-2002      50%
2002-2003      60%
2003-2004      35%
2004-2005      64%
2005-2006      13%
2006-2007      22%
2007-2008      10%
2008-2009      29%
2009-2010      25%
2010-2011      14%
2011-2012      33%
2012-2013      35%
2013-2014      40.0%

Season      Second Int
1999-2000      10%
2000-2001      0%
2001-2002      0%
2002-2003      25%
2003-2004      18%
2004-2005      50%
2005-2006      25%
2006-2007      6%
2007-2008      0%
2008-2009      32%
2009-2010      25%
2010-2011      8%
2011-2012      20%
2012-2013      12%
2013-2014      27.8%

[dag14]

Colgate internet feed was horrible for the women's game on Friday as well. It was free but I would have preferred to pay if it would mean actually being able to see the games.

[Jim Hyla]

Thanks, I guess I've got it as good as it gets.::barf::

[marty]

OK, people.  Calm down.  Minnesota lost two to Wisconsin this weekend.  Michigan lost to Penn State.  It happens.

Michigan lost 4-O and it was PSUs first Big 10 win. Time to get rid of Berenson. ;-)

[redice]

We will find out what the team is made of in the next 2 weeks.

After watching the third period last evening, I'm concerned.    They clearly lost their composure.   Yes, the officials were putting the screws to them.   But, the good teams have to stay composed during those times.    Schafer's last few teams do not seem to possess that mental toughness.    That's part of the discipline that Schafer is either no longer recruiting or no longer demanding of his players or both.    

The product on the ice shows it.

Not really. Last year, yes, I would agree it was terribly undisciplined. Before last night's game we were sitting at tenth in ECAC penalty minutes. Only Harard and Yale were behind us, or ahead, depending upon your point of view. That hardly says that they have been undisciplined.

Jim, I think you & I are talking about two different aspects of discipline.    I'm referring to the mental discipline that keeps the players focused during the tough times, such as when the refs seem to be picking on them.     And, it may well have seemed that way to the players for a while in the 3rd period Saturday.    As someone else also acknowledged, they lost composure.    There were not taking care of their assignments and Colgate was skating freely into the Cornell zone.    The Cornell goalies were being left hanging out to dry.    That discipline to maintain composure at a time like that might be different than the discipline that you're thinking of, but it's real & it's a necessary component in a championship team.   The good teams have to fight through those moments or get routed 6-1!!

[redice]

We will find out what the team is made of in the next 2 weeks.

After watching the third period last evening, I'm concerned.    They clearly lost their composure.   Yes, the officials were putting the screws to them.   But, the good teams have to stay composed during those times.    Schafer's last few teams do not seem to possess that mental toughness.    That's part of the discipline that Schafer is either no longer recruiting or no longer demanding of his players or both.    

The product on the ice shows it.

In an attempt to judge the mental toughness of different Cornell squads, I pulled some data from collegehockeystats.net.  I think there are three measures that can measure toughness that are readily available: win% when giving up the first goal, win% when losing at the first intermission, and win% when losing at the second intermission. I think we're doing all right. We have a 40% win percentage when losing after the first period, which is our highest mark in almost a decade.  Losing after 2 periods, our win% is 27.8%, which is our best mark since the 08-09 season (granted, only slightly higher than 09-10).  When we don't score first, however, we win 40% of the time, which is about average going back to '07-'08.  I wish that were higher.

I agree that last night definitely showed a lack of composure, but I think mental toughness is a strength this year, as compared to teams of recent past.

You don't think mental toughness and composure are inter-twined?     I disagree strongly!

[Jim Hyla]

We will find out what the team is made of in the next 2 weeks.

After watching the third period last evening, I'm concerned.    They clearly lost their composure.   Yes, the officials were putting the screws to them.   But, the good teams have to stay composed during those times.    Schafer's last few teams do not seem to possess that mental toughness.    That's part of the discipline that Schafer is either no longer recruiting or no longer demanding of his players or both.    

The product on the ice shows it.

In an attempt to judge the mental toughness of different Cornell squads, I pulled some data from collegehockeystats.net.  I think there are three measures that can measure toughness that are readily available: win% when giving up the first goal, win% when losing at the first intermission, and win% when losing at the second intermission. I think we're doing all right. We have a 40% win percentage when losing after the first period, which is our highest mark in almost a decade.  Losing after 2 periods, our win% is 27.8%, which is our best mark since the 08-09 season (granted, only slightly higher than 09-10).  When we don't score first, however, we win 40% of the time, which is about average going back to '07-'08.  I wish that were higher.

I agree that last night definitely showed a lack of composure, but I think mental toughness is a strength this year, as compared to teams of recent past.

You don't think mental toughness and composure are inter-twined?     I disagree strongly!

I'll respond to this as well. Sat night was bad, but as evidenced by the close games we have won, you can't generalize to the year. Reread his post, Sat and the year are two different things.

It always amazes me what can happen after one bad game.

[KGR11]

We will find out what the team is made of in the next 2 weeks.

After watching the third period last evening, I'm concerned.    They clearly lost their composure.   Yes, the officials were putting the screws to them.   But, the good teams have to stay composed during those times.    Schafer's last few teams do not seem to possess that mental toughness.    That's part of the discipline that Schafer is either no longer recruiting or no longer demanding of his players or both.    

The product on the ice shows it.

In an attempt to judge the mental toughness of different Cornell squads, I pulled some data from collegehockeystats.net.  I think there are three measures that can measure toughness that are readily available: win% when giving up the first goal, win% when losing at the first intermission, and win% when losing at the second intermission. I think we're doing all right. We have a 40% win percentage when losing after the first period, which is our highest mark in almost a decade.  Losing after 2 periods, our win% is 27.8%, which is our best mark since the 08-09 season (granted, only slightly higher than 09-10).  When we don't score first, however, we win 40% of the time, which is about average going back to '07-'08.  I wish that were higher.

I agree that last night definitely showed a lack of composure, but I think mental toughness is a strength this year, as compared to teams of recent past.

You don't think mental toughness and composure are inter-twined?     I disagree strongly!

I agree that they're inter-twined.  What I don't agree with is taking the characteristics of one game, which features lack of composure/mental toughness/etc., and applying it as a team characteristic.  Why should this game, which showed a lack of composure, be considered any more than the Clarkson game at Lynah, where Clarkson got a 2 goal lead thanks to lousy officiating, but Cornell showed great mental toughness and ended up winning?  A legitimate answer is that the Colgate is more recent and could indicate a trend.  That would be a fair point, but there's no certainty whether Cornell will rebound or if they will still have trouble going forward.

I think using every game to date is a better way to measure the characteristics of this team.  Comparing how this team handles a deficit after the first goal or after an intermission to others IS a way to measure mental toughness.  I know that you were specifically thinking about how we respond to poor officiating instead of being in a deficit, but there's no stat for that and it's difficult to be objective about it anyways.

[redice]

We will find out what the team is made of in the next 2 weeks.

After watching the third period last evening, I'm concerned.    They clearly lost their composure.   Yes, the officials were putting the screws to them.   But, the good teams have to stay composed during those times.    Schafer's last few teams do not seem to possess that mental toughness.    That's part of the discipline that Schafer is either no longer recruiting or no longer demanding of his players or both.    

The product on the ice shows it.

In an attempt to judge the mental toughness of different Cornell squads, I pulled some data from collegehockeystats.net.  I think there are three measures that can measure toughness that are readily available: win% when giving up the first goal, win% when losing at the first intermission, and win% when losing at the second intermission. I think we're doing all right. We have a 40% win percentage when losing after the first period, which is our highest mark in almost a decade.  Losing after 2 periods, our win% is 27.8%, which is our best mark since the 08-09 season (granted, only slightly higher than 09-10).  When we don't score first, however, we win 40% of the time, which is about average going back to '07-'08.  I wish that were higher.

I agree that last night definitely showed a lack of composure, but I think mental toughness is a strength this year, as compared to teams of recent past.

You don't think mental toughness and composure are inter-twined?     I disagree strongly!

I agree that they're inter-twined.  What I don't agree with is taking the characteristics of one game, which features lack of composure/mental toughness/etc., and applying it as a team characteristic.  Why should this game, which showed a lack of composure, be considered any more than the Clarkson game at Lynah, where Clarkson got a 2 goal lead thanks to lousy officiating, but Cornell showed great mental toughness and ended up winning?  A legitimate answer is that the Colgate is more recent and could indicate a trend.  That would be a fair point, but there's no certainty whether Cornell will rebound or if they will still have trouble going forward.

I think using every game to date is a better way to measure the characteristics of this team.  Comparing how this team handles a deficit after the first goal or after an intermission to others IS a way to measure mental toughness.  I know that you were specifically thinking about how we respond to poor officiating instead of being in a deficit, but there's no stat for that and it's difficult to be objective about it anyways.

I'm getting it now....We're going to add up all the games and divide by XYZ come to the conclusion that, on average, Saturday night just didn't happen.   With a little reinforcement from Jim Hyla, we know that to be fact.   ::bang::

I'll be out shopping for my rose-tinted (or is that Carnellian-tinted) glasses today.   I want to see the world with such wisdom in the future.

[Jim Hyla]

We will find out what the team is made of in the next 2 weeks.

After watching the third period last evening, I'm concerned.    They clearly lost their composure.   Yes, the officials were putting the screws to them.   But, the good teams have to stay composed during those times.    Schafer's last few teams do not seem to possess that mental toughness.    That's part of the discipline that Schafer is either no longer recruiting or no longer demanding of his players or both.    

The product on the ice shows it.

In an attempt to judge the mental toughness of different Cornell squads, I pulled some data from collegehockeystats.net.  I think there are three measures that can measure toughness that are readily available: win% when giving up the first goal, win% when losing at the first intermission, and win% when losing at the second intermission. I think we're doing all right. We have a 40% win percentage when losing after the first period, which is our highest mark in almost a decade.  Losing after 2 periods, our win% is 27.8%, which is our best mark since the 08-09 season (granted, only slightly higher than 09-10).  When we don't score first, however, we win 40% of the time, which is about average going back to '07-'08.  I wish that were higher.

I agree that last night definitely showed a lack of composure, but I think mental toughness is a strength this year, as compared to teams of recent past.

You don't think mental toughness and composure are inter-twined?     I disagree strongly!

I agree that they're inter-twined.  What I don't agree with is taking the characteristics of one game, which features lack of composure/mental toughness/etc., and applying it as a team characteristic.  Why should this game, which showed a lack of composure, be considered any more than the Clarkson game at Lynah, where Clarkson got a 2 goal lead thanks to lousy officiating, but Cornell showed great mental toughness and ended up winning?  A legitimate answer is that the Colgate is more recent and could indicate a trend.  That would be a fair point, but there's no certainty whether Cornell will rebound or if they will still have trouble going forward.

I think using every game to date is a better way to measure the characteristics of this team.  Comparing how this team handles a deficit after the first goal or after an intermission to others IS a way to measure mental toughness.  I know that you were specifically thinking about how we respond to poor officiating instead of being in a deficit, but there's no stat for that and it's difficult to be objective about it anyways.

I'm getting it now....We're going to add up all the games and divide by XYZ come to the conclusion that, on average, Saturday night just didn't happen.   With a little reinforcement from Jim Hyla, we know that to be fact.   ::bang::

I'll be out shopping for my rose-tinted (or is that Carnellian-tinted) glasses today.   I want to see the world with such wisdom in the future.

No one has said that Saturday night didn't happen. But Saturday night was one day (night) out of the season.  If it starts a downhill trend, then you are correct.  On the other hand, if it's a blip in an otherwise good season, then all of these postings are meaningless. Maybe you never have a bad day, but I certainly do. I don't have rose-tinted glasses, but when they happen, I don't jump off the bridge.

[Jeff Hopkins '82]

We will find out what the team is made of in the next 2 weeks.

After watching the third period last evening, I'm concerned.    They clearly lost their composure.   Yes, the officials were putting the screws to them.   But, the good teams have to stay composed during those times.    Schafer's last few teams do not seem to possess that mental toughness.    That's part of the discipline that Schafer is either no longer recruiting or no longer demanding of his players or both.    

The product on the ice shows it.

In an attempt to judge the mental toughness of different Cornell squads, I pulled some data from collegehockeystats.net.  I think there are three measures that can measure toughness that are readily available: win% when giving up the first goal, win% when losing at the first intermission, and win% when losing at the second intermission. I think we're doing all right. We have a 40% win percentage when losing after the first period, which is our highest mark in almost a decade.  Losing after 2 periods, our win% is 27.8%, which is our best mark since the 08-09 season (granted, only slightly higher than 09-10).  When we don't score first, however, we win 40% of the time, which is about average going back to '07-'08.  I wish that were higher.

I agree that last night definitely showed a lack of composure, but I think mental toughness is a strength this year, as compared to teams of recent past.

You don't think mental toughness and composure are inter-twined?     I disagree strongly!

I agree that they're inter-twined.  What I don't agree with is taking the characteristics of one game, which features lack of composure/mental toughness/etc., and applying it as a team characteristic.  Why should this game, which showed a lack of composure, be considered any more than the Clarkson game at Lynah, where Clarkson got a 2 goal lead thanks to lousy officiating, but Cornell showed great mental toughness and ended up winning?  A legitimate answer is that the Colgate is more recent and could indicate a trend.  That would be a fair point, but there's no certainty whether Cornell will rebound or if they will still have trouble going forward.

I think using every game to date is a better way to measure the characteristics of this team.  Comparing how this team handles a deficit after the first goal or after an intermission to others IS a way to measure mental toughness.  I know that you were specifically thinking about how we respond to poor officiating instead of being in a deficit, but there's no stat for that and it's difficult to be objective about it anyways.

I'm getting it now....We're going to add up all the games and divide by XYZ come to the conclusion that, on average, Saturday night just didn't happen.   With a little reinforcement from Jim Hyla, we know that to be fact.   ::bang::

I'll be out shopping for my rose-tinted (or is that Carnellian-tinted) glasses today.   I want to see the world with such wisdom in the future.

No one has said that Saturday night didn't happen. But Saturday night was one day (night) out of the season.  If it starts a downhill trend, then you are correct.  On the other hand, if it's a blip in an otherwise good season, then all of these postings are meaningless. Maybe you never have a bad day, but I certainly do. I don't have rose-tinted glasses, but when they happen, I don't jump off the bridge.

That wouldn't help anymore.  There are nets.  ::whistle::

[Trotsky]

It always amazes me what can happen after one bad game.

After all these years, it shouldn't.  After every terrible game over the last 30+ seasons there has been an enormous overreaction.  It's an actual technique used in therapy for people (like me) who have runaway anxiety: assume the absolute worst to stop freefalling, then work backwards to what's likely.  Put a boundary around the fear.

There's nothing wrong with it, although it's a little irritating to be inevitably labeled as a Polyanna when pointing out the rather obvious fact that even the best teams sometimes pull a stinker, and making sweeping generalizations from a small sample size is logically suspect.