2015-16

[Trotsky]

Leaman is under contract with PC through 2022.

[marty]

Leaman is under contract with PC through 2022.

I hope I'm still in the stands in 2022.

I liked Leaman.  He was very much a class act.  Of course we had the Fridge, in contrast, on the evening sports.

[ithacat]

Leaman is under contract with PC through 2022.

I'm sure he has that within-25-miles-of-my-alma-mater escape clause.

[RichH]

I've seen flashes of these quick puck movement, fast in transition attacks even from other ECAC teams (e.g., Harvard this season, Q sometimes too), and it has been those plays that Cornell cannot handle. Teams that can do that consistently may not be common, but they are out there, and Cornell has never shown the ability to beat them.

Guy Gadowski has turned Penn State into exactly the team you described: quick puck movement and constantly peppering the net with shots. Over the course of this season, they have more than double our GF. At MSG we were outshot 38-25, and Cornell showed the ability to beat a team like that. The problem with PSU is that they do so at the expense of a sound defensive game.  Harvard's top line is all about quick puck movement & transition, and Cornell showed the ability to beat a team like that. Our D can get thrown off their game by aggressive fore-checks, and there's less room for mistakes with teams like that, but to say they have "never shown the ability to beat them," isn't completely true.

I'm not buying the "the college game has changed" to a free-wheeling high-octane offensive sniper-centric model argument. I think that's your wish, (and we see 1-2 guys like Gaudreau/Eichel dominate each year), so you keep repeating it here, but it isn't happening. Overall scoring in the NCAA has plateaued, and it isn't returning to the '80s & '90s levels no matter how much you want that to happen.

If you're saying that Cornell would be better served turning into 1992-93 Maine, I would agree with you. Wouldn't every team's fans like that? It's not going to happen.

[Dafatone]

I've seen flashes of these quick puck movement, fast in transition attacks even from other ECAC teams (e.g., Harvard this season, Q sometimes too), and it has been those plays that Cornell cannot handle. Teams that can do that consistently may not be common, but they are out there, and Cornell has never shown the ability to beat them.

Guy Gadowski has turned Penn State into exactly the team you described: quick puck movement and constantly peppering the net with shots. Over the course of this season, they have more than double our GF. At MSG we were outshot 38-25, and Cornell showed the ability to beat a team like that. The problem with PSU is that they do so at the expense of a sound defensive game.  Harvard's top line is all about quick puck movement & transition, and Cornell showed the ability to beat a team like that. Our D can get thrown off their game by aggressive fore-checks, and there's less room for mistakes with teams like that, but to say they have "never shown the ability to beat them," isn't completely true.

I'm not buying the "the college game has changed" to a free-wheeling high-octane offensive sniper-centric model argument. I think that's your wish, (and we see 1-2 guys like Gaudreau/Eichel dominate each year), so you keep repeating it here, but it isn't happening. Overall scoring in the NCAA has plateaued, and it isn't returning to the '80s & '90s levels no matter how much you want that to happen.

If you're saying that Cornell would be better served turning into 1992-93 Maine, I would agree with you. Wouldn't every team's fans like that? It's not going to happen.

Just to further jump on this point, one thing that I think gets underrecognized (it's a word because I said so) is that uptempo play is sometimes what happens when you're doing well.  We'd have looked a lot flashier if we could score on our breakaways or odd-man rushes.  When you're controlling play and spending more time in the offensive zone, you look uptempo.

That's not to say that there's no difference between a defensive and offensive team.  Just that speed of play can sometimes be a result of success rather than a deliberate choice.

[RichH]

Just to further jump on this point, one thing that I think gets underrecognized (it's a word because I said so) is that uptempo play is sometimes what happens when you're doing well.  We'd have looked a lot flashier if we could score on our breakaways or odd-man rushes.  When you're controlling play and spending more time in the offensive zone, you look uptempo.

That's not to say that there's no difference between a defensive and offensive team.  Just that speed of play can sometimes be a result of success rather than a deliberate choice.

That's a very good point. The 2010 team had a guy like Greening at the top of his game, but all four lines were rolling on a fairly consistent basis.

This year's team showed two areas of improvement that will get lost in the crushing disappointment of The End:

1) The breakout. This has been a bugaboo of many recent CU teams. I hate, hate, hate, the breakout strategy of retreating behind our net and holding it for 10 seconds before attempting to bring it through the neutral zone (while a forward would occassionaly swing through and maybe decoy picking up the puck). It was constantly poorly executed and often resulted in a quick turnover & opponent scoring opportunity. This year, that seemed to be mostly abandoned, and our transition out of the defensive zone was much improved. For this reason, I don't think our top lines did all that much dump-and-chase as everyone here seems to think. Our checking lines? Ehhhh not so much. Lots of dumping.

2) Penalty killing, returning to a Cornell hallmark. We were great at getting in the way, and few teams were successful from mid-Jan on to really set up a sustained PP.


Two major areas of regression:

1) All shots on our established possessions seemed to come from above the circles. There was nobody willing to do the dirty work down low near the crease. Hilbrich learned to leverage his body more and force himself to the area near the post at times, and Cole was pretty much everywhere, but there were so few of those hard-fought efforts to work the puck to the slot and/or jump on rebounds. Everybody wanted to be Ryan and McDonald and bomb away from the top of the circles, and our shooting was clearly not accurate enough to do that without the low-point muckers to help out.

2) Physicality was never established under a game-plan framework. I like a team willing to hit hard and use its physical advantage, but I love a team that hits with a planned outcome or purpose. Our checking this season was rather aimless. Early penalties went up, because so many hits were for mistake-compensation only. Great Cornell teams not only had the size advantage, but they were able to use contact with an idea of a positive outcome from that contact, whether it was to spring an advancing forward with the puck or maintain an established possession cycle.

[BearLover]

I've seen flashes of these quick puck movement, fast in transition attacks even from other ECAC teams (e.g., Harvard this season, Q sometimes too), and it has been those plays that Cornell cannot handle. Teams that can do that consistently may not be common, but they are out there, and Cornell has never shown the ability to beat them.

I'm not buying the "the college game has changed" to a free-wheeling high-octane offensive sniper-centric model argument. I think that's your wish, (and we see 1-2 guys like Gaudreau/Eichel dominate each year), so you keep repeating it here, but it isn't happening. Overall scoring in the NCAA has plateaued, and it isn't returning to the '80s & '90s levels no matter how much you want that to happen.

If you're saying that Cornell would be better served turning into 1992-93 Maine, I would agree with you. Wouldn't every team's fans like that? It's not going to happen.

But I've never said any of that.  Are you confusing me with someone else?  I've always advocated for being solid on both ends of the ice, never for firewagon hockey.

[RichH]

I've seen flashes of these quick puck movement, fast in transition attacks even from other ECAC teams (e.g., Harvard this season, Q sometimes too), and it has been those plays that Cornell cannot handle. Teams that can do that consistently may not be common, but they are out there, and Cornell has never shown the ability to beat them.

I'm not buying the "the college game has changed" to a free-wheeling high-octane offensive sniper-centric model argument. I think that's your wish, (and we see 1-2 guys like Gaudreau/Eichel dominate each year), so you keep repeating it here, but it isn't happening. Overall scoring in the NCAA has plateaued, and it isn't returning to the '80s & '90s levels no matter how much you want that to happen.

If you're saying that Cornell would be better served turning into 1992-93 Maine, I would agree with you. Wouldn't every team's fans like that? It's not going to happen.

But I've never said any of that.  Are you confusing me with someone else?  I've always advocated for being solid on both ends of the ice, never for firewagon hockey.

It's very possible. I go away from this board for several days in the offseason and then read quickly through dozens of posts, so I get people mixed up & can't find stuff I know I've read. My apologies.

[Scersk '97]

Overall scoring in the NCAA has plateaued, and it isn't returning to the '80s & '90s levels...

Code Select Expand



Year    Team               Scoring Margin
---------------------------------------
02      SCSU               1.90
03  4   Cornell            2.33
04      North Dakota       2.24
05      Cornell            1.91
06 *    Minnesota          1.56
07  4   Notre Dame         1.74
08      Miami              2.17
09  4!  BU                 1.91
10 *4!  BC                 1.60
11      Yale               2.14
12  4   Union              1.66
13      Minnesota          1.48
14 *4   BC                 1.75
15      Michigan Tech      1.87


* = top scoring margin without defense in top ten
4 = made Frozen Four
! = Champeens!

Whether or not overall scoring is going down, I think I'm seeing, without any sort of display of statistical rigor, that scoring margins are going down. I have no idea what to say about that.

But, some things I think:

(1) Holy Cross shocked '06 Minnesota; Union stomped '14 BC. '10 BC out-fire-wagoned '10 Yale 9–7. Ahead of Yale 9–4 with about thirteen to go in the third, they let Yale back within two. If there had been five more minutes in that game, who knows? They then headed to Detroit and blew Miami and then Wisconsin off of Ford Field.

(2) Michigan Tech has a legitimate chance to make the Frozen Four this year, and that makes me kind of happy. Yet you'd think that them being the top scoring margin team would make it more of a lock. Seems not to be the case.

(3) If you're not BC or Minnesota, you might as well build out from a stingy defense.

[marty]

(3) If you're not BC or Minnesota, you might as well build out from a stingy defense.

Blasphemy! :-)

[MattS]

My litmus test on Schafer or any HC or any leader is can a better one be brought in.

I agree.

There must be a coach out there who is willing to come to CU for the pay, willing to deal with  restrictions, and can do a better job. I'm not sure who that is but other programs seem to he able to get them. Why not CU.

You go on to say Schafer should be replaced, but you don't have any idea who it should be. "There must be" isn't an answer.

A couple of years before Schafer came, many of us were hoping that we could get him. He had shown to be a good recruiter and was respected for his knowledge. Indeed he turned out to be what we needed then.

So if he needs replacing now, who is the obvious candidate? Up to now I haven't seen anyone give that name. Maybe he exists, but just saying he must, doesn't make it so.

Re-read my second paragraph.

[Jim Hyla]

My litmus test on Schafer or any HC or any leader is can a better one be brought in.

I agree.

There must be a coach out there who is willing to come to CU for the pay, willing to deal with  restrictions, and can do a better job. I'm not sure who that is but other programs seem to he able to get them. Why not CU.

You go on to say Schafer should be replaced, but you don't have any idea who it should be. "There must be" isn't an answer.

A couple of years before Schafer came, many of us were hoping that we could get him. He had shown to be a good recruiter and was respected for his knowledge. Indeed he turned out to be what we needed then.

So if he needs replacing now, who is the obvious candidate? Up to now I haven't seen anyone give that name. Maybe he exists, but just saying he must, doesn't make it so.

Re-read my second paragraph.

I did. Here it is:

Disclaimer: I don't know anything about the inner workings of how HC are hired, dismissed, or paid at CU. So my statements might be unrealistic.

So, I'll agree, your statements might be unrealistic. I might even go stronger than "might", but that would just be my opinion. Like you, and I dare say everyone else who posts here, I don't know anything about those issues either. So I'm not going to say there must be another, better coach out there.

[Trotsky]

I'll still be in the stands in 2022, regardless of who is behind the bench.

Hopefully the change we want to se is already on the way in our future commits, since it seems like the pipeline between commitment and actually making a contribution to the program is now four full years (2 years in the prospect pipeline and then 2 years for the incoming class to take control of the team through maturation).  Next year's definitive (Junior) class was recruited back in 2012.  If Mike goes out and changes recruiting today we won't see the results really affect the team until 2020 or so.

[MattS]

My litmus test on Schafer or any HC or any leader is can a better one be brought in.

I agree.

There must be a coach out there who is willing to come to CU for the pay, willing to deal with  restrictions, and can do a better job. I'm not sure who that is but other programs seem to he able to get them. Why not CU.

You go on to say Schafer should be replaced, but you don't have any idea who it should be. "There must be" isn't an answer.

A couple of years before Schafer came, many of us were hoping that we could get him. He had shown to be a good recruiter and was respected for his knowledge. Indeed he turned out to be what we needed then.

So if he needs replacing now, who is the obvious candidate? Up to now I haven't seen anyone give that name. Maybe he exists, but just saying he must, doesn't make it so.

Re-read my second paragraph.

I did. Here it is:

Disclaimer: I don't know anything about the inner workings of how HC are hired, dismissed, or paid at CU. So my statements might be unrealistic.

So, I'll agree, your statements might be unrealistic. I might even go stronger than "might", but that would just be my opinion. Like you, and I dare say everyone else who posts here, I don't know anything about those issues either. So I'm not going to say there must be another, better coach out there.

I certainly think there is a better coach out there. Mike is not the best coach in the world or even the U.S. so I do think a better coach could be found. I don't know with any authority who that person is. I do have my own ideas, I just do not know how feasible my ideas are which is why I put the disclaimer in my post and did not offer any new coach suggestions.

[ithacat]

(3) If you're not BC or Minnesota, you might as well build out from a stingy defense.

I'm not so sure that's still the case. Even if it is, I'd rather lose at Lynah by a score of 4-3 than 1-0. I think the "it's all your fault" chant is the most intimidating chant we have and I'd rather hear it as much as possible. Of course, I'm an offense and speed freak in any sport.

Looking at the last 10 national champs (of which there have been 8 different schools) offense appears to be carrying the game. 6 of the last 10 champs have had an offense which ranked higher nationally than its defense, which doesn't seem to be that big a deal. However, only once in the past 7 years had a champion had a higher defensive rank than its offense. The average goals scored per game for the last 10 champs is 3.60 with only one team averaging less than 3 goals per game (Yale, 2.89). The average goals against for those champs is 2.30 with only one team holding its opponents to less than 2 per game (Wisconsin, 1.84).

Maybe it's just cyclical, but it seems like the rules will continue to favor offensive play going forward.