Colgate vs. Cornell home-and-home 1/19-20

[BearLover]

Interesting to read all of the posts this year about how we need a coaching change because of how much Yale, Q, etc. Have left us behind.  

What we needed was a *recruiting* change, and that seems to have happened.  We actually outskated Yale this year.

We should give a lot of credit to Schafer. He saw how changes in rules, refereeing, and players were changing the game, and he adjusted his approach. Instead of 6'4" 230 lb bruisers wearing down the other team, he started recruiting more for speed and quickness. He also changed his system. It's taken a while for this new style of recruit to make its way into the system, with this year's junior class probably being the first with this completely new look. (Vanderlan's breakout, setting up Angelo's first goal, on Friday is a good example of our newly found speed at work.) It probably also took time for him to be able to demonstrate to potential recruits, like Donaldson, that they could be central to the new system and the coach knows how to coach such teams.

As someone who had been one of Schafer's more vocal critics over the past few years, my major issue was that he seemed either unwilling or unable to adapt to the changing game.

He seemed unwilling to adapt because he continued to play a similar system, with similar players, for years while getting repeatedly trounced by Yale and, later, Q and U. Following the most disappointing season, 2014-15, Schafer made comments that did not suggest changes were coming. He said he had tried some new things that season that hadn't worked, so he was going back to what had worked in the past. And at the beginning of 2015-16, when things looked like they were starting to turn around, Schafer essentially threw the '15 senior class under the bus for the disappointment the prior year. Those are comments that should never be made publicly about any student athlete, especially ones who had devoted four years of hard work to the program. It sounded like someone trying to absolve himself of all responsibility.

He seemed unable to adapt because why would a small, fast, skilled player want to come to Ithaca to play for a program known for a lumbering defensive style? Or why would any top-tier talent want to play for Cornell when peer schools had seen more success over several years? The appeal of Cornell Hockey was that you can compete for a national championship while getting a world-class education in a program steeped in tradition with the best fans in college hockey. And Cornell was in a class by itself in that respect, as it had made the NCAAs every-other year while getting farther than anyone in its league, going all the way to the Frozen Four. But then Yale made the NCAAs 6/8 years and won the NCAA title. Union won three straight ECAC championships and won the national title. Quinnipiac made the NCAAs four years in a row and lost in the national title game twice. And the fan support waned. Why would a speedy forward want to play for Cornell? Was there any available evidence then that Schafer could actually coach these guys?

I'm happy I was wrong. As best I can tell from how the last couple of years have played out, Schafer is just a really good coach and a strong recruiter, and has been able to attract skilled guys and incorporate them into the system, which still emphasizes disciplined defense and wearing the other team down in the offensive zone. Despite all my gripes, I never actually advocated for immediately firing Schafer because there was nothing to suggest the alternative would be any better. Hopefully the good times continue and the team can use this success to attract top talent for the years to come.

[Trotsky]

Interesting to read all of the posts this year about how we need a coaching change because of how much Yale, Q, etc. Have left us behind.  

What we needed was a *recruiting* change, and that seems to have happened.  We actually outskated Yale this year.

We should give a lot of credit to Schafer. He saw how changes in rules, refereeing, and players were changing the game, and he adjusted his approach. Instead of 6'4" 230 lb bruisers wearing down the other team, he started recruiting more for speed and quickness. He also changed his system. It's taken a while for this new style of recruit to make its way into the system, with this year's junior class probably being the first with this completely new look. (Vanderlan's breakout, setting up Angelo's first goal, on Friday is a good example of our newly found speed at work.) It probably also took time for him to be able to demonstrate to potential recruits, like Donaldson, that they could be central to the new system and the coach knows how to coach such teams.

As someone who had been one of Schafer's more vocal critics over the past few years, my major issue was that he seemed either unwilling or unable to adapt to the changing game.

He seemed unwilling to adapt because he continued to play a similar system, with similar players, for years while getting repeatedly trounced by Yale and, later, Q and U. Following the most disappointing season, 2014-15, Schafer made comments that did not suggest changes were coming. He said he had tried some new things that season that hadn't worked, so he was going back to what had worked in the past. And at the beginning of 2015-16, when things looked like they were starting to turn around, Schafer essentially threw the '15 senior class under the bus for the disappointment the prior year. Those are comments that should never be made publicly about any student athlete, especially ones who had devoted four years of hard work to the program. It sounded like someone trying to absolve himself of all responsibility.

He seemed unable to adapt because why would a small, fast, skilled player want to come to Ithaca to play for a program known for a lumbering defensive style? Or why would any top-tier talent want to play for Cornell when peer schools had seen more success over several years? The appeal of Cornell Hockey was that you can compete for a national championship while getting a world-class education in a program steeped in tradition with the best fans in college hockey. And Cornell was in a class by itself in that respect, as it had made the NCAAs every-other year while getting farther than anyone in its league, going all the way to the Frozen Four. But then Yale made the NCAAs 6/8 years and won the NCAA title. Union won three straight ECAC championships and won the national title. Quinnipiac made the NCAAs four years in a row and lost in the national title game twice. And the fan support waned. Why would a speedy forward want to play for Cornell? Was there any available evidence then that Schafer could actually coach these guys?

I'm happy I was wrong. As best I can tell from how the last couple of years have played out, Schafer is just a really good coach and a strong recruiter, and has been able to attract skilled guys and incorporate them into the system, which still emphasizes disciplined defense and wearing the other team down in the offensive zone. Despite all my gripes, I never actually advocated for immediately firing Schafer because there was nothing to suggest the alternative would be any better. Hopefully the good times continue and the team can use this success to attract top talent for the years to come.

Well said.

[Dafatone]

Interesting to read all of the posts this year about how we need a coaching change because of how much Yale, Q, etc. Have left us behind.  

What we needed was a *recruiting* change, and that seems to have happened.  We actually outskated Yale this year.

We should give a lot of credit to Schafer. He saw how changes in rules, refereeing, and players were changing the game, and he adjusted his approach. Instead of 6'4" 230 lb bruisers wearing down the other team, he started recruiting more for speed and quickness. He also changed his system. It's taken a while for this new style of recruit to make its way into the system, with this year's junior class probably being the first with this completely new look. (Vanderlan's breakout, setting up Angelo's first goal, on Friday is a good example of our newly found speed at work.) It probably also took time for him to be able to demonstrate to potential recruits, like Donaldson, that they could be central to the new system and the coach knows how to coach such teams.

As someone who had been one of Schafer's more vocal critics over the past few years, my major issue was that he seemed either unwilling or unable to adapt to the changing game.

He seemed unwilling to adapt because he continued to play a similar system, with similar players, for years while getting repeatedly trounced by Yale and, later, Q and U. Following the most disappointing season, 2014-15, Schafer made comments that did not suggest changes were coming. He said he had tried some new things that season that hadn't worked, so he was going back to what had worked in the past. And at the beginning of 2015-16, when things looked like they were starting to turn around, Schafer essentially threw the '15 senior class under the bus for the disappointment the prior year. Those are comments that should never be made publicly about any student athlete, especially ones who had devoted four years of hard work to the program. It sounded like someone trying to absolve himself of all responsibility.

He seemed unable to adapt because why would a small, fast, skilled player want to come to Ithaca to play for a program known for a lumbering defensive style? Or why would any top-tier talent want to play for Cornell when peer schools had seen more success over several years? The appeal of Cornell Hockey was that you can compete for a national championship while getting a world-class education in a program steeped in tradition with the best fans in college hockey. And Cornell was in a class by itself in that respect, as it had made the NCAAs every-other year while getting farther than anyone in its league, going all the way to the Frozen Four. But then Yale made the NCAAs 6/8 years and won the NCAA title. Union won three straight ECAC championships and won the national title. Quinnipiac made the NCAAs four years in a row and lost in the national title game twice. And the fan support waned. Why would a speedy forward want to play for Cornell? Was there any available evidence then that Schafer could actually coach these guys?

I'm happy I was wrong. As best I can tell from how the last couple of years have played out, Schafer is just a really good coach and a strong recruiter, and has been able to attract skilled guys and incorporate them into the system, which still emphasizes disciplined defense and wearing the other team down in the offensive zone. Despite all my gripes, I never actually advocated for immediately firing Schafer because there was nothing to suggest the alternative would be any better. Hopefully the good times continue and the team can use this success to attract top talent for the years to come.

I think the notion of offensive vs defensive systems is a little overemphasized, at least by us. You're still looking to spend more time in your opponent's zone and succeed on both ends of the puck, no matter what you're doing. I wonder if Schafer's referencing of changes and changing back was less of an offense/defense balance and more about specific strategic elements. I don't really know what sort of strategies I'm talking about, since my hockey knowledge isn't that great.

All in all, I think we're playing more offensive hockey because we have the players to do so. You're right that Schafer's demonstrated an ability to recruit these guys and build a system around them.

And since I've certainly argued with you here enough, I'll say this. I don't know if it's correlation or causation, but you've insisted a bad ECAC would be good for us. We're looking very good, and the ECAC looks pretty terrible.

[Tom Lento]

I clearly missed that part of your post. I blame Twitter for my inability to pay attention to more than one sentence. I don't use Twitter, but I'm going to blame it anyway.

[BearLover]

Interesting to read all of the posts this year about how we need a coaching change because of how much Yale, Q, etc. Have left us behind.  

What we needed was a *recruiting* change, and that seems to have happened.  We actually outskated Yale this year.

We should give a lot of credit to Schafer. He saw how changes in rules, refereeing, and players were changing the game, and he adjusted his approach. Instead of 6'4" 230 lb bruisers wearing down the other team, he started recruiting more for speed and quickness. He also changed his system. It's taken a while for this new style of recruit to make its way into the system, with this year's junior class probably being the first with this completely new look. (Vanderlan's breakout, setting up Angelo's first goal, on Friday is a good example of our newly found speed at work.) It probably also took time for him to be able to demonstrate to potential recruits, like Donaldson, that they could be central to the new system and the coach knows how to coach such teams.

As someone who had been one of Schafer's more vocal critics over the past few years, my major issue was that he seemed either unwilling or unable to adapt to the changing game.

He seemed unwilling to adapt because he continued to play a similar system, with similar players, for years while getting repeatedly trounced by Yale and, later, Q and U. Following the most disappointing season, 2014-15, Schafer made comments that did not suggest changes were coming. He said he had tried some new things that season that hadn't worked, so he was going back to what had worked in the past. And at the beginning of 2015-16, when things looked like they were starting to turn around, Schafer essentially threw the '15 senior class under the bus for the disappointment the prior year. Those are comments that should never be made publicly about any student athlete, especially ones who had devoted four years of hard work to the program. It sounded like someone trying to absolve himself of all responsibility.

He seemed unable to adapt because why would a small, fast, skilled player want to come to Ithaca to play for a program known for a lumbering defensive style? Or why would any top-tier talent want to play for Cornell when peer schools had seen more success over several years? The appeal of Cornell Hockey was that you can compete for a national championship while getting a world-class education in a program steeped in tradition with the best fans in college hockey. And Cornell was in a class by itself in that respect, as it had made the NCAAs every-other year while getting farther than anyone in its league, going all the way to the Frozen Four. But then Yale made the NCAAs 6/8 years and won the NCAA title. Union won three straight ECAC championships and won the national title. Quinnipiac made the NCAAs four years in a row and lost in the national title game twice. And the fan support waned. Why would a speedy forward want to play for Cornell? Was there any available evidence then that Schafer could actually coach these guys?

I'm happy I was wrong. As best I can tell from how the last couple of years have played out, Schafer is just a really good coach and a strong recruiter, and has been able to attract skilled guys and incorporate them into the system, which still emphasizes disciplined defense and wearing the other team down in the offensive zone. Despite all my gripes, I never actually advocated for immediately firing Schafer because there was nothing to suggest the alternative would be any better. Hopefully the good times continue and the team can use this success to attract top talent for the years to come.

I think the notion of offensive vs defensive systems is a little overemphasized, at least by us. You're still looking to spend more time in your opponent's zone and succeed on both ends of the puck, no matter what you're doing. I wonder if Schafer's referencing of changes and changing back was less of an offense/defense balance and more about specific strategic elements. I don't really know what sort of strategies I'm talking about, since my hockey knowledge isn't that great.

All in all, I think we're playing more offensive hockey because we have the players to do so. You're right that Schafer's demonstrated an ability to recruit these guys and build a system around them.

And since I've certainly argued with you here enough, I'll say this. I don't know if it's correlation or causation, but you've insisted a bad ECAC would be good for us. We're looking very good, and the ECAC looks pretty terrible.

I think both offense and defense are now more about team speed than they were a decade ago, when physicality was the name of the game. I would imagine the same skills go into forechecking as do beating a forecheck, and you need the same attributes to score in transition as you need to defend in transition. Still, Cornell is tied for the seconc-tallest team in the nation and most of its offense has come from traditional "power forwards" (Yates, Angello, Mallott, Barron, etc.). Even Vanderlaan, at 5'7, plays a very physical style, and he may be harder to push off the puck than anyone. So to my (untrained) hockey eye it's hard to know what precisely the difference is other than that for whatever reason, the passes have been crisper and the skating has been faster and Cornell just has more guys who can score than they did a few years ago.

[scoop85]

Biggest improvement I see is the passing. A lot more tape-to-tape, especially from our end into the neutral zone.

[upprdeck]

the creativity of the passing has been much improved this year.  since the team is young that points at better recruiting.

[Trotsky]

We're more fun and we're winning.

[ugarte]

the creativity of the passing has been much improved this year.  since the team is young that points at better recruiting.

our big guys can carry the puck. like, really carry the puck. it's been nice to have a team that can beat a forecheck. we used to get spooked by even halfhearted efforts from mediocre teams. now we bring the puck out.

[Cop at Lynah]

I believe a lot of the credit goes to Ben Syer.  It's since his arrival that the recruiting has changed.  Hopefully he sticks around awhile, but my gut says there is a head coaching opportunity coming his way in the near future.

[Trotsky]

I believe a lot of the credit goes to Ben Syer.  It's since his arrival that the recruiting has changed.  Hopefully he sticks around awhile, but my gut says there is a head coaching opportunity coming his way in the near future.

That's an interesting angle.  A way to at least mitigate the risk would be to make him the heir apparent (associate vs assistant coach) and for Mike to give him an indication of how much longer he intends to coach.

[George64]

A way to at least mitigate the risk would be to make him the heir apparent (associate vs assistant coach) and for Mike to give him an indication of how much longer he intends to coach.

The first part is done.  Syer's title is Associate Head Coach.

[Swampy]

I believe a lot of the credit goes to Ben Syer.  It's since his arrival that the recruiting has changed.  Hopefully he sticks around awhile, but my gut says there is a head coaching opportunity coming his way in the near future.

That's an interesting angle.  A way to at least mitigate the risk would be to make him the heir apparent (associate vs assistant coach) and for Mike to give him an indication of how much longer he intends to coach.

He's only 55, turning 56 in October. If a NC is his white whale, he might stay around until he wins one. Hopefully, not too long now.

Also, and not completely unrelated to the previous thought, although this year's freshmen had potential, Mike was very circumspect about such a young team's chances. But thanks in no small part to the large freshman class, the team has thus far exceeded everyone's expectations. Even if we were to win a NC as early as this year ::idea::, he might want to hang around to see what he and this group can achieve by the time they graduate.

[BearLover]

It's hard to measure recruiting but if you go by draft picks this year's team is not markedly different from past years'. [tbrw link that I still don't know how to post]

Of course, you can end up with a ton of Vanderlaans and Donaldsons on your team, players who weren't drafted mostly because of size but who can still excel in college, and maybe Cornell is getting more of those these days.

[Tcl123]

I believe a lot of the credit goes to Ben Syer.  It's since his arrival that the recruiting has changed.  Hopefully he sticks around awhile, but my gut says there is a head coaching opportunity coming his way in the near future.[/quote