New Recruits

[KeithK]

It may not be whining, but it certainly is griping about a bad draw (and I am very much guilty of it).  There's a fine line between the two.  

[RichS]

It's whining when someone says words to the effect that 'we'd have one if it were played on NHL size ice' or 'their advantage on that ice was the reason they won'.

Fact is both teams played on the same surface and if indeed Minny was faster and forced cornell to take restraining penalties because they could not keep up with their speed, as one of your colleagues reported, then that's a sign of a competitive advantage that the Gophers had.  Admit it and don't whine about the ice surface.

[Steve M]

Agreed and I am too.  I'm proud of the team for almost pulling it out against the odds and refusing to gripe at all, even though it must be a lot more frustrating for them than it was for us.  Bad draws come along every now and then for some and more often for others.  Congrats to CC for managing  to overcome theirs this year.

[DeltaOne81]

We never said we would have won. We *did* say the game would have gone much differently and we would have had a much better chance. I don't see how you could objectively argue with those statements.

Just like we could have won on big ice, we could have lost on small ice, but I don't think pointing out the factual differences is whining. It does make a big difference, that's a fact.

[Scersk '97]

There's quite a difference between "whining" and "analyzing a loss."

Whining:  Oh, geez.  Why do we always get screwed?  Why does this always happen to us?  Why did we have to go to Minnesota?  Why couldn't it have been somebody else?  We deserved the #1 seed, not Minnesota.  Oh, geez, being a Cornell hockey fan is so difficult!

Analyzing:  You know, I thought we had a chance against Minnesota, but the large ice looked to be a factor.  Of course, it's kind of difficult to tell whether it was the large ice or their superior team speed.  Hmmm...  let's think about this.

I count it as a particularly American neurosis that we are almost unable to analyze defeat publicly.  Talking about a loss is, after all, what losers do; exploring hypothetheticals is "whining."  Look at Vietnam, look at recent problems with figuring out 9/11, look at reports of sporting matches:  it's somewhat endemic to our society.  How does the cliché go?  "Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it?"  Perhaps it should be, "Those who do not analyze and understand their losses are doomed to be losers."

I think this discussion has been particularly aimed towards figuring out how Cornell might solve, or might be in the process of solving, the problems we've had facing the Minnesotas and UHNs of the world.  In that vein, I thought the discussion was progessing well.  And then you, RichS, came along and made an inane comment about "whining."  Way to be juvenile.  I had almost started to feel some sort of respect for you when, responding to one of my own threads regarding Clarkson/Cornell history, you showed some reasonable knowledge of the situation.  Then you have to go and screw it up.

Yes, we do have our trolls, and they, even Facetimer, sometimes display bursts of knowledge like you do.  The problem, as I said, is the signal-to-noise ratio.  How do you ever expect anyone to pay attention when you have something to say if you keep spouting off idiocy at every chance?  It's one thing to make a snide comment in the space of a reasonable analysis, but it's quite another to come up with the "trollish one-liner."  Frankly, I've heard them all before.  If you want to do that kind of crap, go to USCHO.

Basically, grow up.

[Steve M]

Everything you said in the post above is true and I do think the better team won.   I never said, however, that Cornell would have won if the game were played on NHL ice.  I only said they would have had a much better chance.  There's a difference.

[Trotsky]

I'm sure the British thought the colonists were "whining."  

Where you stand depends on where you sit...

[Scersk '97]

Of course, the British probably didn't get a chance to tell the colonists that they were "whining" in their own broadsheets:

*********************
Ye Olde Scandal Sheet
---------------------
Colonies in Turmoil!
Babies Eaten!
King George has syphillis!
Letters to the Editor:  King George III, John Jay, Paul Revere

Dear Editor,

You and the colonists are stupidheads.

Cheers,
KG III

They had to rely on proclamations for that:

By Order of His Majesty King George III

Colonists:  STOP WHINING!

Go Red.

[Jeff Hopkins '82]

The would have said STOP WHINGING, but point taken :-P

[BCrespi]

Circular logic at its finest right there.

[RichS]

Not at all.

What made the difference is greater speed on the part of the Gophers if I read game reports and some comments here correctly.  If an opponent can't match their speed, that's an edge for them in hockey skill, not an edge created by a different ice surface.

Is the edge exacerbated by a bigger surface?  Perhaps so although many dispute that notion.  What doesn't change is that speed is a big advantage regardless of the surface.

[BCrespi]

Would you argue that size and solid stay-at-home defense are also attributes/skills that are helpful in hockey?  I think this goes without saying, but who knows, I'm a whiny Cornell hockey fan.  Regardless, this cannot be solved here.  I think that a larger rink would help a speedy, more skilled team, while a smaller rink would help a more physical, defensive team.  Oh well, not really worth arguing, but you can't say that nomatter where/when/how/why a game is played has no bearing simply because a team is faster.  Many other factors come into play.  The Yankees have (almost) always built their team around lefthanded power hitting and lefthanded starting pitching due to the dimensions of their home ballpark.  Of course in Major League Baseball all teams play at home in the playoffs...but who am I to judge.

[DeltaOne81]

Wow Rich, you almost understood what we were talking about!

Yes, Gophers were speedier, an advantage which was helped by the larger ice surface.

We're more solid defensively, wear the other team down more, and play better along the boards. Advantages which are helped by smaller rinks.

So, had the rink been smaller, we would have stood a better chance. That's all.

No one here said "the Gophers were completely talentless and the only thing they had going for them was a bigger rink". That doesn't make any sense. If you have no skill, then rink size doesn't matter. By us saying rink size helped the Gophers, which it clearly did, that must OBVIOUSLY mean that the Gophers have skills which are helped by a larger rink. It's so incredibly inherent in the argument that we didn't feel we need to spell it out to avoid offending someone who searches for reasons to be offended.

[RichS]

Relax Delta.

I've played hockey in college and now have coached at the youth and high school level for several years.  I know the game pretty well.

First off, when the issue of a larger ice surface hurting cornell came up a few years ago re" the Olympic Arena in Lake Placid, Schafer blew it off and said it would not have a meaningful affect.  He was right, it didn't.  His team adjusted appropriately to the surface.

I didn't see the game last week but I do not recall him making any comments either before or after re: the ice size being a big factor.  I may have missed some so please enlighten me if I did.

As a coach you focus on the things you can control, not the ones you cannot, such as where the game is being played once the seedings are done.  I'm sure he did that.  You use techniques to minimize the speed advantage the other team has the best you can.    That can largely negate the percived huge advantage that many fans (those who don't know the strategic part of the game as well) think a faster team will have.  If they have other talents that compliment their speed and allow them to offset your adjustments, that means they have an advantage...another hockey skill advantage.

No point whining about that and certainly no point whining about the seeding and ice size as I read here for a week before the game was played.

As for your last comment re: looking for reasons to be offended...are you serious?  If the stuff that you guys say to me or at me offended me personally, would I be here?  Come on, do better than that.

[DisplacedCornellian]

[Q]RichS Wrote:
As for your last comment re: looking for reasons to be offended...are you serious?  If the stuff that you guys say to me or at me offended me personally, would I be here?  Come on, do better than that.[/q]

Yes, you probably would be here because you have nothing better to do.

And if that's not the case, then enlighten us.  Why, exactly, are you here?  Shouldn't you be rejoicing in Cornell's NCAA misfortune with your cronies over on the roundtable?