CHN: Cornell Battling Expectations After Inconsistent First Half

[Beeeej]

Another Adam Wodon puff piece... ::nut::::bolt::

https://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2025/01/07_Cornell-Battling-Expectations.php

[ugarte]

nice

[BearLover]

Another Adam Wodon puff piece... ::nut::::bolt::

https://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2025/01/07_Cornell-Battling-Expectations.php

I appreciate this article. It touches on a lot of the things wrong with this team and includes some great quotes from Schafer. I would have really liked if, in addition to noting that Shane and special teams have been bad, Wodon had asked Schafer why that is the case. Particularly as it ties into the new coaches: who is coaching the PP/PK? (Syer used to coach the PK.) Have any of the systems changed? And in general it would have been nice to hear about how it's been working alongside a new coaching staff this year. Are there any challenges?

All that is to say: it's a really nice article, but it doesn't unravel the mystery of why things are the way they are (other than one euphemism about "players trying to do too much"). Cornell has dealt with injuries in past seasons, but the results have never been this bad.

[adamw]

Another Adam Wodon puff piece... ::nut::::bolt::

https://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2025/01/07_Cornell-Battling-Expectations.php

I appreciate this article. It touches on a lot of the things wrong with this team and includes some great quotes from Schafer. I would have really liked if, in addition to noting that Shane and special teams have been bad, Wodon had asked Schafer why that is the case. Particularly as it ties into the new coaches: who is coaching the PP/PK? (Syer used to coach the PK.) Have any of the systems changed? And in general it would have been nice to hear about how it's been working alongside a new coaching staff this year. Are there any challenges?

All that is to say: it's a really nice article, but it doesn't unravel the mystery of why things are the way they are (other than one euphemism about "players trying to do too much"). Cornell has dealt with injuries in past seasons, but the results have never been this bad.

This sounds like you are attempting to be complimentary, so I'm not going to fan the flames again (this time ... but I will make hopefully one last remark about the coaches and then let it go, for my health. I may need my wife to take my keyboard privileges away to prevent me from responding further, but I'll try...

I didn't ask Coach about the makeup of the coaching staff and whether that's causing any issues for the special teams - because the question is preposterous on its face. I know that, Coach knows that. Why ask him a laughable question? It's like when Fox News says "I'm just asking the question."  Not every question is legitimate or needs to be asked.

You say it doesn't "unravel the mystery" - and it's along the lines of your complaints that I haven't offered an alternative explanation. Yet me, here, and in the article, offer numerous alternative explanations. You just refuse to accept them.  And one of the explanations -- besides injuries, "doing too much," bad goaltending at times, etc.... (which are some pretty good explanations right there) - are that some things are just the random mysteries and deviations of life. "The coaching/coaches" is about 10,000th on a list of 10,000 things that could be an explanation.  It's silly to talk about.

tl;dr, as they say in court "asked and answered, move on"

[BearLover]

Another Adam Wodon puff piece... ::nut::::bolt::

https://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2025/01/07_Cornell-Battling-Expectations.php

I appreciate this article. It touches on a lot of the things wrong with this team and includes some great quotes from Schafer. I would have really liked if, in addition to noting that Shane and special teams have been bad, Wodon had asked Schafer why that is the case. Particularly as it ties into the new coaches: who is coaching the PP/PK? (Syer used to coach the PK.) Have any of the systems changed? And in general it would have been nice to hear about how it's been working alongside a new coaching staff this year. Are there any challenges?

All that is to say: it's a really nice article, but it doesn't unravel the mystery of why things are the way they are (other than one euphemism about "players trying to do too much"). Cornell has dealt with injuries in past seasons, but the results have never been this bad.

I didn't ask Coach about the makeup of the coaching staff and whether that's causing any issues for the special teams - because the question is preposterous on its face. I know that, Coach knows that. Why ask him a laughable question? It's like when Fox News says "I'm just asking the question."  Not every question is legitimate or needs to be asked.

I just strongly disagree that it's preposterous to suggest coaching is playing a role here. Once again: half the coaching staff changed in the offseason. The top assistant left. We now functionally have two head coaches on staff. To suggest coaching is playing a role in the team's lack of success is not the same as saying Schafer or Jones is a bad coach. You could have been really good at your old job, but find a steep learning curve at your new one. Or a boss may need some time to work out the kinks with his new hires. That doesn't mean anybody is bad at their job or incapable of turning it around.

Obviously, you wouldn't ask Schafer: "Does CJ have any clue how to coach the PK? The numbers were much better under Syer!" You would ask, "When you look at the special teams' struggles this year, are you able to identify specific causes? Are you running the same schemes as last season or were changes implemented? In your view, is the team starting to turn the corner on special teams?" You could also ask: "How has it been working with Casey and Corey? Was there an adjustment period or was the coaching staff able to hit the ground running?"

I'm not telling you how to do your job. Obviously you know how to asks these questions better than I do. My point is only that there's nothing accusatory or "preposterous" in these sorts of questions. They're entirely reasonable, IMO.

[adamw]

Obviously, you wouldn't ask Schafer: "Does CJ have any clue how to coach the PK? The numbers were much better under Syer!" You would ask, "When you look at the special teams' struggles this year, are you able to identify specific causes? Are you running the same schemes as last season or were changes implemented? In your view, is the team starting to turn the corner on special teams?" You could also ask: "How has it been working with Casey and Corey? Was there an adjustment period or was the coaching staff able to hit the ground running?"

Here's the thing - none of those questions would get you any further meaningful insights. I already know the answers to those questions, and they're not interesting. There's not nearly as much there as you think there is. Nothing at all in fact. You can choose to believe that or not. We already know where you stand.

[BearLover]

Obviously, you wouldn't ask Schafer: "Does CJ have any clue how to coach the PK? The numbers were much better under Syer!" You would ask, "When you look at the special teams' struggles this year, are you able to identify specific causes? Are you running the same schemes as last season or were changes implemented? In your view, is the team starting to turn the corner on special teams?" You could also ask: "How has it been working with Casey and Corey? Was there an adjustment period or was the coaching staff able to hit the ground running?"

Here's the thing - none of those questions would get you any further meaningful insights. I already know the answers to those questions, and they're not interesting. There's not nearly as much there as you think there is. Nothing at all in fact. You can choose to believe that or not. We already know where you stand.

You know the dynamic between and among players and coaches? You know the division of labor within the coaching staff? You know the schemes and systems Cornell is running this year, and how they compare to last year's? Come on, man. That's the whole point of asking the questions.

[Dafatone]

Another thing to keep in mind is that if, say, Schafer knew that Shane was having trouble with a certain save location because he injured something or whatever, the absolute last thing Schafer's gonna do is say that.

To the extent that any strategy gets talked about, after our last actually bad year (I think we were under .500 in the early 2010s or so?), Schafer said we tried something different that season and we were going to go back to whatever we were doing before.

That might've been a tactical shift, or maybe "whatever we were doing before" just meant winning.

[fastforward]

Another Adam Wodon puff piece... ::nut::::bolt::

https://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2025/01/07_Cornell-Battling-Expectations.php

I appreciated Shafer's candor in this article

[marty]

Obviously, you wouldn't ask Schafer: "Does CJ have any clue how to coach the PK? The numbers were much better under Syer!" You would ask, "When you look at the special teams' struggles this year, are you able to identify specific causes? Are you running the same schemes as last season or were changes implemented? In your view, is the team starting to turn the corner on special teams?" You could also ask: "How has it been working with Casey and Corey? Was there an adjustment period or was the coaching staff able to hit the ground running?"

Here's the thing - none of those questions would get you any further meaningful insights. I already know the answers to those questions, and they're not interesting. There's not nearly as much there as you think there is. Nothing at all in fact. You can choose to believe that or not. We already know where you stand.

You know the dynamic between and among players and coaches? You know the division of labor within the coaching staff? You know the schemes and systems Cornell is running this year, and how they compare to last year's? Come on, man. That's the whole point of asking the questions.

I dub thee The Shell Answer Man The eLynah Question Man ? or how I came in out of the fog.

[BearLover]

To the extent that any strategy gets talked about, after our last actually bad year (I think we were under .500 in the early 2010s or so?), Schafer said we tried something different that season and we were going to go back to whatever we were doing before.

That might've been a tactical shift, or maybe "whatever we were doing before" just meant winning.

It's weird, but I remember that pretty clearly. I'm like 80% sure he explicitly said he was talking about the forecheck. He tried a new forecheck system, the team was bad that year, and then he decided to go back to the prior system because there was "no accountability" under the new system. Something like that.

[BearLover]

To the extent that any strategy gets talked about, after our last actually bad year (I think we were under .500 in the early 2010s or so?), Schafer said we tried something different that season and we were going to go back to whatever we were doing before.

That might've been a tactical shift, or maybe "whatever we were doing before" just meant winning.

It's weird, but I remember that pretty clearly. I'm like 80% sure he explicitly said he was talking about the forecheck. He tried a new forecheck system, the team was bad that year, and then he decided to go back to the prior system because there was "no accountability" under the new system. Something like that.

I've located the article!:
https://cornellsun.com/2015/10/21/cornell-mens-hockey-mike-schafer/

Anyway, this is precisely the type of piece I was talking about when I said I was hopeful that someone would do a deeper dive on the hockey team.

(And I regret suggesting the Sun would not write such a piece. Though I have a feeling Schafer volunteered all of this information himself.)

[Iceberg]

In the new remake of the "Why Can't We Be Friends" music video, BearLover and Adam will be one of the initial pairs shaking hands and hugging each other

[jeff '84]

Another Adam Wodon puff piece... ::nut::::bolt::

https://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2025/01/07_Cornell-Battling-Expectations.php

I appreciated Shafer's candor in this article

Meanwhile Mike was overall pretty pleased (almost uncharacteristically so) with the way we played this weekend (from his weekly summary):

"It certainly was great to be back in action, and even though I didn't like Saturday night's results, I am overall very happy with our team, and I feel we have turned a corner.  We played the type of hockey I feel will lead to success, and we were fairly consistent on our approach both nights.

On Friday night vs. UMass, we came out flying and spent a lot of time in the its end of the ice. The Minutemen took a 1-0 lead with 32 seconds remaining in the first period as a shot took an unfortunate bounce off the glove of goaltender Ian Shane and trickled into the back of the net.

The score remained in favor of UMass until 16:18 of the second period, when sophomore forward Ryan Walsh tallied a wrister off a faceoff 12 seconds after we had been on the power play. The goal was unassisted.  UMass took back the lead with 17 seconds remaining in the period with a power play goal, but the scoring remained on our side of the ledger the rest of the way.

We came out flying to start the third period, and it was a good comeback with some resiliency. At 6:52 of the third period, senior defenseman Tim Rego tied the score at 2-all. Rego took a took a cross-ice pass from sophomore defenseman Ben Robertson at the half-wall, and deposited a wrap-around goal past the sprawling goaltender. Less than six minutes later, we took the lead for good.  At 12:18, junior forward Dalton Bancroft scored a beautiful goal as he deked the goaltender and fired a shot over the goaltender's near-side shoulder. It was a highlight reel goal and topped the night for us.  Sophomore forward Jonathan Castagna won a faceoff in our end with 14 seconds remaining, and sent a shot nearly the length of the ice into an empty net.

Shane made 22 saves in goal, and the UMass netminder stopped 31 shots.  We were 0-for-2 on the power play, and they were 1-for-1.

On Saturday evening, we faced an ASU team that is much better than ones we have played in the past. I actually felt we played pretty well against the home team. Hockey comes down to nights on who capitalizes on chances and that is exactly what happened.

Arizona State opened the game with goals at 10:23 and 19:33 of the first period to give the Sun Devils their seventh consecutive win, the longest in program history. The winners increased their lead to 3-0 at 11:39 of the second period, concluding a stretch of 11 straight shot attempts in a span of 73 seconds.  With 12 seconds remaining in the second period, Arizona scored on a 4-on-3 power play for a 4-0 decision.

We dominated the third period with a 17-5 shots on goal result against a goaltender that we had seen briefly last season.

Shane made 24 saves, and the Sun Devils goaltender stopped 34 shots.  We saw him last year when he entered the game in relief and made 22 saves bringing his total saves against us to 56. He was outstanding on Saturday evening. We were 0-for-1 on the power play, and they were 1-for-4. Obviously we lost, but I felt we played pretty well against ASU. It has been a long time since we have lost a non-conference game.

In one other note, the shutout stoped our consecutive goal scoring at 49 games. The school's longest goal-scoring streak is 262 games (Dec. 29, 1972-Dec. 5, 1981).

We continue our seven-game road trip this weekend in Fairfield, Conn., for a two-game set with non-conference opponent, Sacred Heart (11-8-3). Friday night's game time is 7 pm, and we play again at 5 pm on Saturday.  Hope you can come a cheer us on to victory."

[Trotsky]

2.5 days until the Healing Can Begin.

Or we'll crap out at #39 Sacred Heart and I'll jump into the Palisades fire with the rest of you.