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

[Trotsky]

That's 10-3 by xG, including the last 6 in a row.  Huh.

[BearLover]

That's 10-3 by xG, including the last 6 in a row.  Huh.

Three of those were basically even, but yes. Of all the games this season, the Dartmouth game haunts me the most. Dartmouth did not look good, but we gave the game away. That's what started the slide. I said at that time that Dartmouth looked very unimpressive, and sure enough they've lost most of their games since.

[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.

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!

Actually, I've directly answered you in a number of previous threads. What you see as not giving you a better explanation, is simply me repeating myself, and spending too much time partaking in this tiresome nonsense.

[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.

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.

You criticized us for writing nothing but fluff. Whether you want to label it a "demand" or "dumb complaint" - my reply stands.

[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

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.

Otoh when you're playing from behind your xG gets inflated because you're chasing the game and presumably shooting more. Analytics without context.  For example, in the midst of the Rangers historic collapse,the analytics have them "winning" a lot of the games.

[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.

Otoh when you're playing from behind your xG gets inflated because you're chasing the game and presumably shooting more. Analytics without context.  For example, in the midst of the Rangers historic collapse,the analytics have them "winning" a lot of the games.

We're saying the same thing.

[Beeeej]

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.

Not disagreeing with the overall characterizations of how we're performing, but we were #21 in the PWR at this point last season after tying ASU in Lake Placid (with the exact same 6-4-3 record we have right now, albeit not against the same competition), before we went on that historical and improbable 11-2-3 run to close the regular season. We're #27 right now with the same number of games left, and to my mind the distance between #27 and #19 is awfully tight compared to the gaps above #19. Not that I'm overlooking the impact that might have on our ability to climb above #19, but most of our remaining opponents are eminently beatable if Shane gets his act together and we get most guys healthy. The main external problem as I see it, at-large-wise, is the fact that 7 of the top 16 right now are Hockey East - that means the other conferences' tourney winners are likely to take more of the bottom 2-4 slots. Is it mathematically impossible or nearly impossible for Cornell to finish at or above #13 again? Maybe not. Plugging in a 16-0-0 run and ignoring all other results puts us in #7. Even adjusting with a loss to Q (at Q, natch) and (optimistically) a split with Clarkson lands us in #12 (again, absent all other game results; if I give our OOC opponents this season good records down the stretch as well, I can get us to finish as high as #8 with a 14-2 finish).

Do I believe a 14-2-0 run is likely with the team as we've observed them thus far this season? I do not. But I also don't agree with "almost locked out." Improbable, maybe. But wouldn't it be fun to watch?

[stereax]

Otoh when you're playing from behind your xG gets inflated because you're chasing the game and presumably shooting more. Analytics without context.  For example, in the midst of the Rangers historic collapse,the analytics have them "winning" a lot of the games.

Obligatory fuck the Rangers, lmao. I think I said it before somewhere else, and Trotsky confirmed it, but the team basically lives and dies by Shane because we're not that good at capitalizing on chances even ES, much less PP. Paralleling to my Devils, we've outchanced a LOT in the past few games but are still on a 4-game slide because we can't finish. If you can put pucks in the net, you rely less on your goalie to be perfect. If you rely on a perfect tendy, you don't have to worry so much about sinking pucks. Problem is, neither is happening rn.

[Al DeFlorio]

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.

"Burning questions?"  "Investigative reporting?"  Huh?  These are kids playing a game.  For our entertainment. Sometimes your team exceeds expectations, sometimes it doesn't. It's not the Boston archdiocese child abuse scandal.  Or government corruption in Belarus.  Or bankers fixing LIBOR rates.  Ranting that someone has to find out just what it is that's behind this "colossal disappointment" by "dig[ging] into it" to reveal the culprit "so we will know" is just over the top.

[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!

Actually, I've directly answered you in a number of previous threads. What you see as not giving you a better explanation, is simply me repeating myself, and spending too much time partaking in this tiresome nonsense.

On this forum at least, I don't think you've given any reason why Cornell has been so disappointing this year. You have merely argued that coaching isn't the reason. Anyway, I'm dropping this argument. I'll be happy to be proven wrong when somebody, somewhere, writes a piece digging into why Cornell has been a huge disappointment this season and/or analyzing the unique coaching situation.

[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.

"Burning questions?"  "Investigative reporting?"  Huh?  These are kids playing a game.  For our entertainment. Sometimes your team exceeds expectations, sometimes it doesn't. It's not the Boston archdiocese child abuse scandal.  Or government corruption in Belarus.  Or bankers fixing LIBOR rates.  Ranting that someone has to find out just what it is that's behind this "colossal disappointment" by "dig[ging] into it" to reveal the culprit "so we will know" is just over the top.

Nope, nice try, but I'm still not ranting that anybody "has to" find out anything. I'm lamenting, from my and other fans' selfish perspective, that nobody is going to, and so the most disappointing season in the history[?] of Cornell hockey will remain shrouded in mystery. I'm not making any normative claim about how things "should" be.

[ugarte]

people have gotten entirely deranged by bearlover. it's starting to be more about you than him. he has a very specific point of view with two significant prongs.

1) the 24-25 team is a big disapointment and, barring a wild run on the level of last year, we will not get an at large. (NB: IIRC we weren't going to get an at-large LAST year if we biffed the ECAC final, even after the stellar spring run, which only makes his point more stark).

2) the results from ithaca, princeton and potsdam indicate that coaching is one of the driving factors in this year's disappointment. i don't know if i agree - the sample size is small and normal variance seems to be a problem as much as anything - but it isn't a wild-eyed thought imo.

here are my thoughts.

- we were probably too optimistic coming in because of the spring semester run, including the win over maine. the season was all over the place with highs and lows and Seger really was not only a great player in his own right but an incredible glue guy.

- Shane has always paired spectacular saves with head-scratchers and It's The System is part joke and part truism. he doesn't face a ton of shots and he doesn't face a lot of good shots, so you'd expect a decently high save percentage. i feel like he has always faced too many GREAT shots where he's hung out to dry, and it has led to some divergence between his individual stats and team results. like, he'll save .920 by stopping a ton of crap and then giving up a bad rebound and two that you have to hang on the D. this year despite not facing a lot of shots, he's getting burned more than he should. it's a crisis especially when...

- the team can't finish for shit. every time suda winds up you can tell he's going to stress-test the glass and everyone else seems to be trying to hit a the logo on the goalie's jersey. we seem to be nearly allergic to positioning people to screen and muck for rebounds and all the other things we love to complain about.

- i don't know how much of this is coaching and how much is the players and how much is terrible puck luck. i'm inclined to think that the parts that are coaching have served us well in the past and this year's bad results are an unfortunate anomaly. but i don't *know* that, and while i can find it a little tedious that bearlover bangs the drum so often, the main reason he does is because when he does everyone SCREAMS at him that he can't possibly be right or that he's too negative or that he actually enjoys losing. is he wrong? i don't know! is he annoying? no more than most of you! (or me, probably, even though i'm charming and brilliant). stop nesting threads so much!

at least we seem to have mostly stopped taking 20 seconds to get the puck out from behind the net to start the offense on the power play. i'm going to keep watching hockey. i don't enjoy the games less because after a loss some people come to type "this sucks" and it's definitely more frustrating for me to read "stop being so mean!" as if i care whether the guys just have fun out there.

[Trotsky]

Don't mistake mockery for anger. We're not shouting at the candy asses.  We're laughing at them.

It's SSS. Just let the season play out.

[fastforward]

Wow
Reading this I feel like I'm in a thread full of Karen's LMOA
We may never know what the issue is, and rightfully so-these things often stay within the confines of the locker room
Let's be optimistic that we are on the verge of a comeback and keep cheering for the guys, many who are carrying hefty school workloads
They are attending Cornell for more than just hockey
End of rant

[Dafatone]

people have gotten entirely deranged by bearlover. it's starting to be more about you than him. he has a very specific point of view with two significant prongs.

1) the 24-25 team is a big disapointment and, barring a wild run on the level of last year, we will not get an at large. (NB: IIRC we weren't going to get an at-large LAST year if we biffed the ECAC final, even after the stellar spring run, which only makes his point more stark).

2) the results from ithaca, princeton and potsdam indicate that coaching is one of the driving factors in this year's disappointment. i don't know if i agree - the sample size is small and normal variance seems to be a problem as much as anything - but it isn't a wild-eyed thought imo.

here are my thoughts.

- we were probably too optimistic coming in because of the spring semester run, including the win over maine. the season was all over the place with highs and lows and Seger really was not only a great player in his own right but an incredible glue guy.

- Shane has always paired spectacular saves with head-scratchers and It's The System is part joke and part truism. he doesn't face a ton of shots and he doesn't face a lot of good shots, so you'd expect a decently high save percentage. i feel like he has always faced too many GREAT shots where he's hung out to dry, and it has led to some divergence between his individual stats and team results. like, he'll save .920 by stopping a ton of crap and then giving up a bad rebound and two that you have to hang on the D. this year despite not facing a lot of shots, he's getting burned more than he should. it's a crisis especially when...

- the team can't finish for shit. every time suda winds up you can tell he's going to stress-test the glass and everyone else seems to be trying to hit a the logo on the goalie's jersey. we seem to be nearly allergic to positioning people to screen and muck for rebounds and all the other things we love to complain about.

- i don't know how much of this is coaching and how much is the players and how much is terrible puck luck. i'm inclined to think that the parts that are coaching have served us well in the past and this year's bad results are an unfortunate anomaly. but i don't *know* that, and while i can find it a little tedious that bearlover bangs the drum so often, the main reason he does is because when he does everyone SCREAMS at him that he can't possibly be right or that he's too negative or that he actually enjoys losing. is he wrong? i don't know! is he annoying? no more than most of you! (or me, probably, even though i'm charming and brilliant). stop nesting threads so much!

at least we seem to have mostly stopped taking 20 seconds to get the puck out from behind the net to start the offense on the power play. i'm going to keep watching hockey. i don't enjoy the games less because after a loss some people come to type "this sucks" and it's definitely more frustrating for me to read "stop being so mean!" as if i care whether the guys just have fun out there.

For me it's the math. I think the "we need to all but run the table to get an at-large" worries came about a month earlier than made sense. Now, we're probably fairly close to that, although I still think we have a better shot than people realize (last year the RPI bar to get in was unusually high, though this year might shake out similarly).

Of course, "no need to worry yet" looks a little foolish when the need to worry starts to set in.