Hey Clownlover, the sky isn't falling: this year's team is last year's team.

[adamw]

and CHN/the Sun will never ask a negative question of the coach or write a negative story about the team.

lol that you think this is true ... maybe you should listen to our podcast too. But it's just one of the laundry list of things you will harp ad nauseum that is very false. Any lack of "tough questions" and criticism of Cornell that you fail to see on CHN has to do with a) there's usually no reason to; b) I'm not going to write criticism just to satisfy non-sensical fan blathering ... I don't do that about ANY team in the country ... However, I also do it where it's needed - maybe pay more attention ... c) I have 64 teams to cover, so you're not going to get what you want most of the time.

You definitely want to listen to this week's podcast when it's out.

And yes, it's pathetic the Ithaca Journal no longer covers the team.  Unfortunately -- I know most people here live in a Cornell knowledge bubble -- but this is the case all over the country.  And it sucks.  However, the IJ wasn't asking any tough questions when they did, I assure you.  And probably 99% of places all over the country don't do that either.

[BearLover]

and CHN/the Sun will never ask a negative question of the coach or write a negative story about the team.

lol that you think this is true ... maybe you should listen to our podcast too. But it's just one of the laundry list of things you will harp ad nauseum that is very false. Any lack of "tough questions" and criticism of Cornell that you fail to see on CHN has to do with a) there's usually no reason to; b) I'm not going to write criticism just to satisfy non-sensical fan blathering ... I don't do that about ANY team in the country ... However, I also do it where it's needed - maybe pay more attention ... c) I have 64 teams to cover, so you're not going to get what you want most of the time.

You definitely want to listen to this week's podcast when it's out.

And yes, it's pathetic the Ithaca Journal no longer covers the team.  Unfortunately -- I know most people here live in a Cornell knowledge bubble -- but this is the case all over the country.  And it sucks.  However, the IJ wasn't asking any tough questions when they did, I assure you.  And probably 99% of places all over the country don't do that either.

I read many of the stories on your site and they're all positive. I get it—these are college kids who don't deserve criticism heaped on them, and you need to maintain good relationships with your sources—the same goes for the Sun. I just wish there were more investigative reporting. I'll listen to the podcast, thanks for the rec.

[BearLover]

6. Last year we had 10 freshmen and low expectations. The weak first semester was entirely understandable. Our turnaround also made sense, because of the 10 freshmen coming into their own. Quite the opposite from this year's team: we have one freshman who receives regular playing time and return last year's entire roster minus Seger and a backup goalie.

Last year, you cried bloody murder when I said the team would be better than the year before despite the turnover. You were dancing on the proverbial grave after the slow start. I gave all the reasons why I had confidence in this, mainly having to do with Mike Schafer's ability to improve teams as the year goes on. Then ... this happened. Now, you're back to crabbing about "coaching" and blah blah - despite all evidence to the contrary. SMH.

Honestly, I think it's clear there's a coaching issue this year. The team is out of sync, the special teams are horrible. Compared to last year, it's basically same Cornell roster, with different Cornell coaches, and we've significantly regressed. Old Cornell coach goes to Princeton, they significantly improve. New Cornell coach comes from Clarkson, they significantly improve under their new coach.

I mean, when the entire team underperforms so badly and so consistently, whose fault is it? What's a better explanation?

I think it's very likely Syer was a big piece of Cornell's success the past decade, and he's gone now. The jury is still out on Casey. Early returns aren't good, but he hasn't been given a remotely fair shake yet. What I am much more confident in is that the coaching staff as a whole is struggling. I don't know how much of that is Schafer starting to take a step back, how much of it is Casey and the new assistant learning the ropes, how much of it is having two head coaches and not enough assistants. This does not mean that Schafer or Casey or anyone is a bad coach. I never said that, obviously. Not sure why blaming the coaching is controversial, anyway. I think many on this forum are starting to feel similarly that there may be a problem.

[adamw]

6. Last year we had 10 freshmen and low expectations. The weak first semester was entirely understandable. Our turnaround also made sense, because of the 10 freshmen coming into their own. Quite the opposite from this year's team: we have one freshman who receives regular playing time and return last year's entire roster minus Seger and a backup goalie.

Last year, you cried bloody murder when I said the team would be better than the year before despite the turnover. You were dancing on the proverbial grave after the slow start. I gave all the reasons why I had confidence in this, mainly having to do with Mike Schafer's ability to improve teams as the year goes on. Then ... this happened. Now, you're back to crabbing about "coaching" and blah blah - despite all evidence to the contrary. SMH.

Honestly, I think it's clear there's a coaching issue this year. The team is out of sync, the special teams are horrible. Compared to last year, it's basically same Cornell roster, with different Cornell coaches, and we've significantly regressed. Old Cornell coach goes to Princeton, they significantly improve. New Cornell coach comes from Clarkson, they significantly improve under their new coach.

I mean, when the entire team underperforms so badly and so consistently, whose fault is it? What's a better explanation?

I think it's very likely Syer was a big piece of Cornell's success the past decade, and he's gone now. The jury is still out on Casey. Early returns aren't good, but he hasn't been given a remotely fair shake yet. What I am much more confident in is that the coaching staff as a whole is struggling. I don't know how much of that is Schafer starting to take a step back, how much of it is Casey and the new assistant learning the ropes, how much of it is having two head coaches and not enough assistants. This does not mean that Schafer or Casey or anyone is a bad coach. I never said that, obviously. Not sure why blaming the coaching is controversial, anyway. I think many on this forum are starting to feel similarly that there may be a problem.

The logical leaps here are laughably off the charts. Work on your deductive reasoning skills.

[adamw]

and CHN/the Sun will never ask a negative question of the coach or write a negative story about the team.

lol that you think this is true ... maybe you should listen to our podcast too. But it's just one of the laundry list of things you will harp ad nauseum that is very false. Any lack of "tough questions" and criticism of Cornell that you fail to see on CHN has to do with a) there's usually no reason to; b) I'm not going to write criticism just to satisfy non-sensical fan blathering ... I don't do that about ANY team in the country ... However, I also do it where it's needed - maybe pay more attention ... c) I have 64 teams to cover, so you're not going to get what you want most of the time.

You definitely want to listen to this week's podcast when it's out.

And yes, it's pathetic the Ithaca Journal no longer covers the team.  Unfortunately -- I know most people here live in a Cornell knowledge bubble -- but this is the case all over the country.  And it sucks.  However, the IJ wasn't asking any tough questions when they did, I assure you.  And probably 99% of places all over the country don't do that either.

I read many of the stories on your site and they're all positive. I get it—these are college kids who don't deserve criticism heaped on them, and you need to maintain good relationships with your sources—the same goes for the Sun. I just wish there were more investigative reporting. I'll listen to the podcast, thanks for the rec.

You definitely haven't followed me for 30 years (understandable) if you think this is true about me or the site I run. We are not a PR firm - and I also don't believe in hatchet jobs and blog-like off the cuff ranting. You haven't seen my social media or listened to the podcast if you think all I do is praise Cornell every minute.

As for "investigative reporting" -- heh, we have done more "investigative reporting" of ACTUAL issues than anyone in college hockey media, times 50. You have no idea what you're saying here, about me or the site.  Looking into whether 1 of 64 teams is having "coaching issues" with a 30-year head coach with a track record of wild success just because they have had an inconsistent, disappointing start, is not the definition of "investigative reporting." LOL. Please get over yourself.

[Dafatone]

6. Last year we had 10 freshmen and low expectations. The weak first semester was entirely understandable. Our turnaround also made sense, because of the 10 freshmen coming into their own. Quite the opposite from this year's team: we have one freshman who receives regular playing time and return last year's entire roster minus Seger and a backup goalie.

Last year, you cried bloody murder when I said the team would be better than the year before despite the turnover. You were dancing on the proverbial grave after the slow start. I gave all the reasons why I had confidence in this, mainly having to do with Mike Schafer's ability to improve teams as the year goes on. Then ... this happened. Now, you're back to crabbing about "coaching" and blah blah - despite all evidence to the contrary. SMH.

Honestly, I think it's clear there's a coaching issue this year. The team is out of sync, the special teams are horrible. Compared to last year, it's basically same Cornell roster, with different Cornell coaches, and we've significantly regressed. Old Cornell coach goes to Princeton, they significantly improve. New Cornell coach comes from Clarkson, they significantly improve under their new coach.

I mean, when the entire team underperforms so badly and so consistently, whose fault is it? What's a better explanation?

I think it's very likely Syer was a big piece of Cornell's success the past decade, and he's gone now. The jury is still out on Casey. Early returns aren't good, but he hasn't been given a remotely fair shake yet. What I am much more confident in is that the coaching staff as a whole is struggling. I don't know how much of that is Schafer starting to take a step back, how much of it is Casey and the new assistant learning the ropes, how much of it is having two head coaches and not enough assistants. This does not mean that Schafer or Casey or anyone is a bad coach. I never said that, obviously. Not sure why blaming the coaching is controversial, anyway. I think many on this forum are starting to feel similarly that there may be a problem.

See, watching the team, I see it pretty differently. We look fine if not great, flow of play is solid, we can skate with the best teams we've seen.

Shane giving up a few soft goals is the difference.

That and the PP being a disaster, I'll give you that. It's improved, at least.

[BearLover]

and CHN/the Sun will never ask a negative question of the coach or write a negative story about the team.

lol that you think this is true ... maybe you should listen to our podcast too. But it's just one of the laundry list of things you will harp ad nauseum that is very false. Any lack of "tough questions" and criticism of Cornell that you fail to see on CHN has to do with a) there's usually no reason to; b) I'm not going to write criticism just to satisfy non-sensical fan blathering ... I don't do that about ANY team in the country ... However, I also do it where it's needed - maybe pay more attention ... c) I have 64 teams to cover, so you're not going to get what you want most of the time.

You definitely want to listen to this week's podcast when it's out.

And yes, it's pathetic the Ithaca Journal no longer covers the team.  Unfortunately -- I know most people here live in a Cornell knowledge bubble -- but this is the case all over the country.  And it sucks.  However, the IJ wasn't asking any tough questions when they did, I assure you.  And probably 99% of places all over the country don't do that either.

I read many of the stories on your site and they're all positive. I get it—these are college kids who don't deserve criticism heaped on them, and you need to maintain good relationships with your sources—the same goes for the Sun. I just wish there were more investigative reporting. I'll listen to the podcast, thanks for the rec.

You definitely haven't followed me for 30 years (understandable) if you think this is true about me or the site I run. We are not a PR firm - and I also don't believe in hatchet jobs and blog-like off the cuff ranting. You haven't seen my social media or listened to the podcast if you think all I do is praise Cornell every minute.

As for "investigative reporting" -- heh, we have done more "investigative reporting" of ACTUAL issues than anyone in college hockey media, times 50. You have no idea what you're saying here, about me or the site.  Looking into whether 1 of 64 teams is having "coaching issues" with a 30-year head coach with a track record of wild success just because they have had an inconsistent, disappointing start, is not the definition of "investigative reporting." LOL. Please get over yourself.

Dude, what? I'm not demanding CHN cover anything. I'm merely lamenting that all these burning questions will never be answered. There are thousands of Cornell fans interested in why this season has been a colossal disappointment. It seems unlikely that CHN, the Sun, or anyone else will dig into this, so we will never know. I'm sorry that you read into my posts a sense of entitlement or whatever else you keep inferring.

[arugula]

6. Last year we had 10 freshmen and low expectations. The weak first semester was entirely understandable. Our turnaround also made sense, because of the 10 freshmen coming into their own. Quite the opposite from this year's team: we have one freshman who receives regular playing time and return last year's entire roster minus Seger and a backup goalie.

Last year, you cried bloody murder when I said the team would be better than the year before despite the turnover. You were dancing on the proverbial grave after the slow start. I gave all the reasons why I had confidence in this, mainly having to do with Mike Schafer's ability to improve teams as the year goes on. Then ... this happened. Now, you're back to crabbing about "coaching" and blah blah - despite all evidence to the contrary. SMH.

Honestly, I think it's clear there's a coaching issue this year. The team is out of sync, the special teams are horrible. Compared to last year, it's basically same Cornell roster, with different Cornell coaches, and we've significantly regressed. Old Cornell coach goes to Princeton, they significantly improve. New Cornell coach comes from Clarkson, they significantly improve under their new coach.

I mean, when the entire team underperforms so badly and so consistently, whose fault is it? What's a better explanation?

I think it's very likely Syer was a big piece of Cornell's success the past decade, and he's gone now. The jury is still out on Casey. Early returns aren't good, but he hasn't been given a remotely fair shake yet. What I am much more confident in is that the coaching staff as a whole is struggling. I don't know how much of that is Schafer starting to take a step back, how much of it is Casey and the new assistant learning the ropes, how much of it is having two head coaches and not enough assistants. This does not mean that Schafer or Casey or anyone is a bad coach. I never said that, obviously. Not sure why blaming the coaching is controversial, anyway. I think many on this forum are starting to feel similarly that there may be a problem.

See, watching the team, I see it pretty differently. We look fine if not great, flow of play is solid, we can skate with the best teams we've seen.

Shane giving up a few soft goals is the difference.

That and the PP being a disaster, I'll give you that. It's improved, at least.

Tend to think this is true.  In our best years, our margin for error was extremely small.  This year, we're falling more on the wrong side of that line than in more successful years, but the margin for error is still tight and could just as easily go the other way.  The expected goals against ASU suggested a Cornell 4-2 win.  So if Ian tightens up and we can finish a chance in the first period of a game for once, things will change quickly.  Seeing a player like Bancroft-size, speed, some skill, yet undrafted, suggests to me a classic Cornell player--everything but the finish.  If he could finish better, he'd have been drafted and/or would be at Michigan or Denver or some such. That's kind of our season in a nutshell

[BearLover]

6. Last year we had 10 freshmen and low expectations. The weak first semester was entirely understandable. Our turnaround also made sense, because of the 10 freshmen coming into their own. Quite the opposite from this year's team: we have one freshman who receives regular playing time and return last year's entire roster minus Seger and a backup goalie.

Last year, you cried bloody murder when I said the team would be better than the year before despite the turnover. You were dancing on the proverbial grave after the slow start. I gave all the reasons why I had confidence in this, mainly having to do with Mike Schafer's ability to improve teams as the year goes on. Then ... this happened. Now, you're back to crabbing about "coaching" and blah blah - despite all evidence to the contrary. SMH.

Honestly, I think it's clear there's a coaching issue this year. The team is out of sync, the special teams are horrible. Compared to last year, it's basically same Cornell roster, with different Cornell coaches, and we've significantly regressed. Old Cornell coach goes to Princeton, they significantly improve. New Cornell coach comes from Clarkson, they significantly improve under their new coach.

I mean, when the entire team underperforms so badly and so consistently, whose fault is it? What's a better explanation?

I think it's very likely Syer was a big piece of Cornell's success the past decade, and he's gone now. The jury is still out on Casey. Early returns aren't good, but he hasn't been given a remotely fair shake yet. What I am much more confident in is that the coaching staff as a whole is struggling. I don't know how much of that is Schafer starting to take a step back, how much of it is Casey and the new assistant learning the ropes, how much of it is having two head coaches and not enough assistants. This does not mean that Schafer or Casey or anyone is a bad coach. I never said that, obviously. Not sure why blaming the coaching is controversial, anyway. I think many on this forum are starting to feel similarly that there may be a problem.

The logical leaps here are laughably off the charts. Work on your deductive reasoning skills.

Yawn. As usual, just direct insults and zero engagement with the substance. I asked, "what's a better explanation [than coaching issues] for the entire team underforming so badly?" and you couldn't even answer that!

[BearLover]

6. Last year we had 10 freshmen and low expectations. The weak first semester was entirely understandable. Our turnaround also made sense, because of the 10 freshmen coming into their own. Quite the opposite from this year's team: we have one freshman who receives regular playing time and return last year's entire roster minus Seger and a backup goalie.

Last year, you cried bloody murder when I said the team would be better than the year before despite the turnover. You were dancing on the proverbial grave after the slow start. I gave all the reasons why I had confidence in this, mainly having to do with Mike Schafer's ability to improve teams as the year goes on. Then ... this happened. Now, you're back to crabbing about "coaching" and blah blah - despite all evidence to the contrary. SMH.

Honestly, I think it's clear there's a coaching issue this year. The team is out of sync, the special teams are horrible. Compared to last year, it's basically same Cornell roster, with different Cornell coaches, and we've significantly regressed. Old Cornell coach goes to Princeton, they significantly improve. New Cornell coach comes from Clarkson, they significantly improve under their new coach.

I mean, when the entire team underperforms so badly and so consistently, whose fault is it? What's a better explanation?

I think it's very likely Syer was a big piece of Cornell's success the past decade, and he's gone now. The jury is still out on Casey. Early returns aren't good, but he hasn't been given a remotely fair shake yet. What I am much more confident in is that the coaching staff as a whole is struggling. I don't know how much of that is Schafer starting to take a step back, how much of it is Casey and the new assistant learning the ropes, how much of it is having two head coaches and not enough assistants. This does not mean that Schafer or Casey or anyone is a bad coach. I never said that, obviously. Not sure why blaming the coaching is controversial, anyway. I think many on this forum are starting to feel similarly that there may be a problem.

See, watching the team, I see it pretty differently. We look fine if not great, flow of play is solid, we can skate with the best teams we've seen.

Shane giving up a few soft goals is the difference.

That and the PP being a disaster, I'll give you that. It's improved, at least.

Tend to think this is true.  In our best years, our margin for error was extremely small.  This year, we're falling more on the wrong side of that line than in more successful years, but the margin for error is still tight and could just as easily go the other way.  The expected goals against ASU suggested a Cornell 4-2 win.  So if Ian tightens up and we can finish a chance in the first period of a game for once, things will change quickly.  Seeing a player like Bancroft-size, speed, some skill, yet undrafted, suggests to me a classic Cornell player--everything but the finish.  If he could finish better, he'd have been drafted and/or would be at Michigan or Denver or some such. That's kind of our season in a nutshell

Where did you see that xG thing? That is insane, if true.

[Dafatone]

6. Last year we had 10 freshmen and low expectations. The weak first semester was entirely understandable. Our turnaround also made sense, because of the 10 freshmen coming into their own. Quite the opposite from this year's team: we have one freshman who receives regular playing time and return last year's entire roster minus Seger and a backup goalie.

Last year, you cried bloody murder when I said the team would be better than the year before despite the turnover. You were dancing on the proverbial grave after the slow start. I gave all the reasons why I had confidence in this, mainly having to do with Mike Schafer's ability to improve teams as the year goes on. Then ... this happened. Now, you're back to crabbing about "coaching" and blah blah - despite all evidence to the contrary. SMH.

Honestly, I think it's clear there's a coaching issue this year. The team is out of sync, the special teams are horrible. Compared to last year, it's basically same Cornell roster, with different Cornell coaches, and we've significantly regressed. Old Cornell coach goes to Princeton, they significantly improve. New Cornell coach comes from Clarkson, they significantly improve under their new coach.

I mean, when the entire team underperforms so badly and so consistently, whose fault is it? What's a better explanation?

I think it's very likely Syer was a big piece of Cornell's success the past decade, and he's gone now. The jury is still out on Casey. Early returns aren't good, but he hasn't been given a remotely fair shake yet. What I am much more confident in is that the coaching staff as a whole is struggling. I don't know how much of that is Schafer starting to take a step back, how much of it is Casey and the new assistant learning the ropes, how much of it is having two head coaches and not enough assistants. This does not mean that Schafer or Casey or anyone is a bad coach. I never said that, obviously. Not sure why blaming the coaching is controversial, anyway. I think many on this forum are starting to feel similarly that there may be a problem.

See, watching the team, I see it pretty differently. We look fine if not great, flow of play is solid, we can skate with the best teams we've seen.

Shane giving up a few soft goals is the difference.

That and the PP being a disaster, I'll give you that. It's improved, at least.

Tend to think this is true.  In our best years, our margin for error was extremely small.  This year, we're falling more on the wrong side of that line than in more successful years, but the margin for error is still tight and could just as easily go the other way.  The expected goals against ASU suggested a Cornell 4-2 win.  So if Ian tightens up and we can finish a chance in the first period of a game for once, things will change quickly.  Seeing a player like Bancroft-size, speed, some skill, yet undrafted, suggests to me a classic Cornell player--everything but the finish.  If he could finish better, he'd have been drafted and/or would be at Michigan or Denver or some such. That's kind of our season in a nutshell

Where did you see that xG thing? That is insane, if true.

Part of that might be that ASU played a more defensive third period

[BearLover]

6. Last year we had 10 freshmen and low expectations. The weak first semester was entirely understandable. Our turnaround also made sense, because of the 10 freshmen coming into their own. Quite the opposite from this year's team: we have one freshman who receives regular playing time and return last year's entire roster minus Seger and a backup goalie.

Last year, you cried bloody murder when I said the team would be better than the year before despite the turnover. You were dancing on the proverbial grave after the slow start. I gave all the reasons why I had confidence in this, mainly having to do with Mike Schafer's ability to improve teams as the year goes on. Then ... this happened. Now, you're back to crabbing about "coaching" and blah blah - despite all evidence to the contrary. SMH.

Honestly, I think it's clear there's a coaching issue this year. The team is out of sync, the special teams are horrible. Compared to last year, it's basically same Cornell roster, with different Cornell coaches, and we've significantly regressed. Old Cornell coach goes to Princeton, they significantly improve. New Cornell coach comes from Clarkson, they significantly improve under their new coach.

I mean, when the entire team underperforms so badly and so consistently, whose fault is it? What's a better explanation?

I think it's very likely Syer was a big piece of Cornell's success the past decade, and he's gone now. The jury is still out on Casey. Early returns aren't good, but he hasn't been given a remotely fair shake yet. What I am much more confident in is that the coaching staff as a whole is struggling. I don't know how much of that is Schafer starting to take a step back, how much of it is Casey and the new assistant learning the ropes, how much of it is having two head coaches and not enough assistants. This does not mean that Schafer or Casey or anyone is a bad coach. I never said that, obviously. Not sure why blaming the coaching is controversial, anyway. I think many on this forum are starting to feel similarly that there may be a problem.

See, watching the team, I see it pretty differently. We look fine if not great, flow of play is solid, we can skate with the best teams we've seen.

Shane giving up a few soft goals is the difference.

That and the PP being a disaster, I'll give you that. It's improved, at least.

I agree with you that we'd be in much better shape if our PP and goaltending were decent instead of very bad. But that's probably true of most teams in the country: turn their two worst attributes into positives and suddenly they're 15+ spots higher in the PWR.

If we're winning on thin margins, that just means we aren't very good. BC and Denver don't win on thin margins. I look at possession and shot totals from this season and see a team that is slightly above average, which is a big disappointment.

There's still some disconnect here with respect to expectations. Last season we had significant roster turnover and so I didn't expect a good first half. This year we had almost no roster turnover so I expected a great first half. Everybody was thinking this team was capable of a Frozen Four run before the season began. From that perspective, even being on the bubble would be disappointing. Instead, we're almost locked out of an at-large midway through the season. So to me, yeah, Shane being decent + PP being decent would make a huge difference, but that doesn't come close to explaining this season's disappointment. I see tons of mistakes and nobody on the team having taken a step forward. Castagna, Robertson, DeSantis, the list goes on and on. It's the whole team, honestly.

[arugula]

6. Last year we had 10 freshmen and low expectations. The weak first semester was entirely understandable. Our turnaround also made sense, because of the 10 freshmen coming into their own. Quite the opposite from this year's team: we have one freshman who receives regular playing time and return last year's entire roster minus Seger and a backup goalie.

Last year, you cried bloody murder when I said the team would be better than the year before despite the turnover. You were dancing on the proverbial grave after the slow start. I gave all the reasons why I had confidence in this, mainly having to do with Mike Schafer's ability to improve teams as the year goes on. Then ... this happened. Now, you're back to crabbing about "coaching" and blah blah - despite all evidence to the contrary. SMH.

Honestly, I think it's clear there's a coaching issue this year. The team is out of sync, the special teams are horrible. Compared to last year, it's basically same Cornell roster, with different Cornell coaches, and we've significantly regressed. Old Cornell coach goes to Princeton, they significantly improve. New Cornell coach comes from Clarkson, they significantly improve under their new coach.

I mean, when the entire team underperforms so badly and so consistently, whose fault is it? What's a better explanation?

I think it's very likely Syer was a big piece of Cornell's success the past decade, and he's gone now. The jury is still out on Casey. Early returns aren't good, but he hasn't been given a remotely fair shake yet. What I am much more confident in is that the coaching staff as a whole is struggling. I don't know how much of that is Schafer starting to take a step back, how much of it is Casey and the new assistant learning the ropes, how much of it is having two head coaches and not enough assistants. This does not mean that Schafer or Casey or anyone is a bad coach. I never said that, obviously. Not sure why blaming the coaching is controversial, anyway. I think many on this forum are starting to feel similarly that there may be a problem.

See, watching the team, I see it pretty differently. We look fine if not great, flow of play is solid, we can skate with the best teams we've seen.

Shane giving up a few soft goals is the difference.

That and the PP being a disaster, I'll give you that. It's improved, at least.

Tend to think this is true.  In our best years, our margin for error was extremely small.  This year, we're falling more on the wrong side of that line than in more successful years, but the margin for error is still tight and could just as easily go the other way.  The expected goals against ASU suggested a Cornell 4-2 win.  So if Ian tightens up and we can finish a chance in the first period of a game for once, things will change quickly.  Seeing a player like Bancroft-size, speed, some skill, yet undrafted, suggests to me a classic Cornell player--everything but the finish.  If he could finish better, he'd have been drafted and/or would be at Michigan or Denver or some such. That's kind of our season in a nutshell

Where did you see that xG thing? That is insane, if true.

CHN

[arugula]

From the box score, next to total FO stats.

[BearLover]

6. Last year we had 10 freshmen and low expectations. The weak first semester was entirely understandable. Our turnaround also made sense, because of the 10 freshmen coming into their own. Quite the opposite from this year's team: we have one freshman who receives regular playing time and return last year's entire roster minus Seger and a backup goalie.

Last year, you cried bloody murder when I said the team would be better than the year before despite the turnover. You were dancing on the proverbial grave after the slow start. I gave all the reasons why I had confidence in this, mainly having to do with Mike Schafer's ability to improve teams as the year goes on. Then ... this happened. Now, you're back to crabbing about "coaching" and blah blah - despite all evidence to the contrary. SMH.

Honestly, I think it's clear there's a coaching issue this year. The team is out of sync, the special teams are horrible. Compared to last year, it's basically same Cornell roster, with different Cornell coaches, and we've significantly regressed. Old Cornell coach goes to Princeton, they significantly improve. New Cornell coach comes from Clarkson, they significantly improve under their new coach.

I mean, when the entire team underperforms so badly and so consistently, whose fault is it? What's a better explanation?

I think it's very likely Syer was a big piece of Cornell's success the past decade, and he's gone now. The jury is still out on Casey. Early returns aren't good, but he hasn't been given a remotely fair shake yet. What I am much more confident in is that the coaching staff as a whole is struggling. I don't know how much of that is Schafer starting to take a step back, how much of it is Casey and the new assistant learning the ropes, how much of it is having two head coaches and not enough assistants. This does not mean that Schafer or Casey or anyone is a bad coach. I never said that, obviously. Not sure why blaming the coaching is controversial, anyway. I think many on this forum are starting to feel similarly that there may be a problem.

See, watching the team, I see it pretty differently. We look fine if not great, flow of play is solid, we can skate with the best teams we've seen.

Shane giving up a few soft goals is the difference.

That and the PP being a disaster, I'll give you that. It's improved, at least.

Tend to think this is true.  In our best years, our margin for error was extremely small.  This year, we're falling more on the wrong side of that line than in more successful years, but the margin for error is still tight and could just as easily go the other way.  The expected goals against ASU suggested a Cornell 4-2 win.  So if Ian tightens up and we can finish a chance in the first period of a game for once, things will change quickly.  Seeing a player like Bancroft-size, speed, some skill, yet undrafted, suggests to me a classic Cornell player--everything but the finish.  If he could finish better, he'd have been drafted and/or would be at Michigan or Denver or some such. That's kind of our season in a nutshell

Where did you see that xG thing? That is insane, if true.

CHN

Thanks. As far as I can tell, the CHN version of xG does not take into account what type of shot it was (backhand, wrist shot, etc.) but only where on the ice it was taken. Still, way better than nothing I would think. Here are Cornell's xG states so far this season (Cornell first, opponent second):

NoDak game 1: 2.7 vs 2.3
NoDak game 2: 2.3 vs 2.7
Yale: 3.6 vs 1.4
Brown: 3.2 vs 2.2
Dartmouth: 3.8 vs 1.8
Harvard: 2.8 vs 3.7
Quinnipiac: 2.1 vs 2.7
Princeton: 3.2 vs 2.6
Quinnipiac (MSG): 3.3 vs 2.6
Colgate (home): 3.2 vs 1.6
Colgate (road): 2.3 vs 1.9
UMass: 3.7 vs 2.2
ASU: 3.6 vs 2.3

One confounding variable is that Cornell has rarely played with the lead this season so has necessarily been more aggressive. With that said, if these stats are reliable, it certainly supports the notion that the biggest problem this season, by far, has been Shane. And I guess lack of finishing ability.