Whither Mike Schafer?

[ben03]

[Q]RatushnyFan Wrote:
But we lose this game probably 8 times out of 10.[/q]
[playing devils advocate] these odds would be flipped in our favor on a small sheet. [/playing devils advocate]

[ben03]

[Q]DeltaOne81 Wrote:

 To say one thing on the original topic, is Schafer is snake bitten, then Harvard is doomed for all eternity [/q]
works for me :-D

[Scersk '97]

[Q]ugarte Wrote:
I have to disagree. There really is no such thing as a "one-game strategy." You design a system to give you the best chance of winning games. The loss to Minnesota doesn't prove any more or less than the loss to BC or Harvard; the win over OSU doesn't prove any more or less than the wins over Maine or Harvard. There were 16 teams in the tournament; 15 of them are going home with a loss.
[/q]

Nope, you have to go back and read what I wrote, however tiresome that may be.  Our scoring margin this year was very similar to that of 2003, but our high scoring games this year were against the usual suspects, with struggling goalies and porous defenses.  These tables from TBRW are instructive, showing our results vs. tournament seeds during the regular season:

http://www.tbrw.info/ecac/ecac_h2hbyyear.html

The 2003 team clobbered teams up and down the tables; this year's team beat up consistently on the little guys.  Both techniques win the same amount of games, roughly, but the former can handle potential adversity much better than the latter.  Meld consistency with explosiveness and--pow!--national championship.  The point:  though it appears that both the 2003 and 2005 teams could hack out the same margin for error, if you look more closely it becomes clear that the 2003 team, because of a superior offense, could dig itself out of more holes.

Since I harp on this kind of comparison, '03 was similar to '96 while '05 has been similar to '97.  I made a comment in some other thread about reevaluating my feeling that the '96 team was "magical."  I want to rescind that, or maybe modify that to say "explosive."  That '96 team could beat any team, any night; the '97 team was more likely to turn in an excellent performance.  (In fact, you could've probably said the same thing about the '96 pep band vs. the '97 pep band, but I digess.)  I still feel as if, had '96 gotten past LSSU, we were going to the final four; however much I wanted to feel the same for '97, most of us kind of knew the season was over vs. North Dakota.

The tantalizing notion left unexplored at the end of this year was a team that was finding its "explosiveness" very late on.  Unfortunately, we'll never know.

[nyiballs]

[Q]ben03 Wrote:

 [Q2]RatushnyFan Wrote:
But we lose this game probably 8 times out of 10.[/Q]
these odds would be flipped in our favor on a small sheet.[/q]

I agree!!!!!

[adamw]

[Q]CUlater 89 Wrote:
Finally, regarding the Ivy League ball-and-chain that Schafer has "overcome", let's not forget Harvard's success under Cleary.  They were perennial national contenders and generally the class of the league for a number of years, despite having to compete with BU, BC and Maine for New England recruits with pro talent and despite the general belief by fans and recruits that the western teams played a better brand of hockey.[/q]

That was almost two decades ago.  Things have changed.  SLU, Colgate, RPI and Clarkson were all also national contenders in that era.  This just cannot happen anymore on a widespread basis for ECAC teams.  The landscape is totally different.

Cornell's ability to land snipers are not easy.  Can't just snap fingers.  These blue chippers want to go to the big schools that they see on TV, which have beautiful buildings and unbelievable amenities.  Cornell has a lot going for it that other ECAC teams don't - including tradition, Lynah, and the ability to get some kids in that other Ivies can't. ... But it's still darned near impossible to compete for true stud prospects with BU/BC/Mich/Minny/Wisc etc...  This situation is only getting exacerbated more and more every year.

So, you maximize what you have, which Schafer does as well as any coach in the country.  It's too easy to say "Cornell is a sniper or two from winning a national title" -- It's true - but it doesn't mean they're not trying.  Maybe Cornell's recent success will build on itself to the point where true blue chippers might give Cornell a shot.

Romano will hopefully fill the bill.  USHR is reporting that Greening is deferring a year to play in the BCHL.  So those guys are 2 years away.

[calgARI '07]

[Q]adamw Wrote:

 [Q2]CUlater 89 Wrote:
Finally, regarding the Ivy League ball-and-chain that Schafer has "overcome", let's not forget Harvard's success under Cleary.  They were perennial national contenders and generally the class of the league for a number of years, despite having to compete with BU, BC and Maine for New England recruits with pro talent and despite the general belief by fans and recruits that the western teams played a better brand of hockey.[/Q]
That was almost two decades ago.  Things have changed.  SLU, Colgate, RPI and Clarkson were all also national contenders in that era.  This just cannot happen anymore on a widespread basis for ECAC teams.  The landscape is totally different.

Cornell's ability to land snipers are not easy.  Can't just snap fingers.  These blue chippers want to go to the big schools that they see on TV, which have beautiful buildings and unbelievable amenities.  Cornell has a lot going for it that other ECAC teams don't - including tradition, Lynah, and the ability to get some kids in that other Ivies can't. ... But it's still darned near impossible to compete for true stud prospects with BU/BC/Mich/Minny/Wisc etc...  This situation is only getting exacerbated more and more every year.

So, you maximize what you have, which Schafer does as well as any coach in the country.  It's too easy to say "Cornell is a sniper or two from winning a national title" -- It's true - but it doesn't mean they're not trying.  Maybe Cornell's recent success will build on itself to the point where true blue chippers might give Cornell a shot.

Romano will hopefully fill the bill.  USHR is reporting that Greening is deferring a year to play in the BCHL.  So those guys are 2 years away.
[/q]


I believe we are starting to see a shift in recruiting where they are starting to target more skilled players.  This will not necessarily come at the expense of the size we have come to know and love in the last few years.  Scott, Barlow, Romano, and Milo are all guys that are undersized but have tremendous offensive talent.  Still, you have Sawada, Kindret, Connors, Mugford, and Greening who will all sustain the physical edge that has really vaulted Cornell into the nation's elite.  I think by adding the additional skill up front, the team is attempting/preparing to take the next step from secondary contender to primary, theoretically joining the teams who perennially contend for the National Championship.

[Trotsky]

[Q]ugarte Wrote:
Don't think that I didn't consider putting Jesus in the mix. But he was more of a desert guy. The Olympic sheet would put him at a huge disadvantage.[/q]

Peter, on the other hand, was a legitimate netminder.

(rim shot)

[jtwcornell91]

[Q]ugarte Wrote:
As for whether Schafer has enough to take us over the top: Herb Brooks is dead and Scotty Bowman is retired. There is nobody else that I would even consider to replace Schafer.[/q]

What about Ditka?

[DeltaOne81]

[Q]calgARI '07 Wrote:
I believe we are starting to see a shift in recruiting where they are starting to target more skilled players.  This will not necessarily come at the expense of the size we have come to know and love in the last few years.  Scott, Barlow, Romano, and Milo are all guys that are undersized but have tremendous offensive talent.  Still, you have Sawada, Kindret, Connors, Mugford, and Greening who will all sustain the physical edge that has really vaulted Cornell into the nation's elite.  I think by adding the additional skill up front, the team is attempting/preparing to take the next step from secondary contender to primary, theoretically joining the teams who perennially contend for the National Championship.[/q]


That's interesting to hear and I hope its true. I've thought for a while (maybe expressed on here one or twice) that what we need some guys who know how to score and then make them work in our system. So that we can maintain our powerhouse defense, but when we're on the other end of the ice, we can have some guys who know how to make things happen. Our offense is good enough to win games with our defense, but if we had an offense that we know had some legitimate playmakers who could put the puck in the net when needed, that would probably be the final step to top tier national contender.

Moulson is probably about the only one, but you can't rely on one guy game in and game out. He can't always do it. That would be really great to see if it does come to be. Easier said than done, of course, as Adam points out, but if anyone can do it, Schafer can, and if he can, well... I can't wait

[Give My Regards]

Interesting commentary in today's Ithaca Journal on the Big Red's season and fan expectations:

http://ithacajournal.com/news/stories/20050330/localsports/2100092.html

[CU at Stanford]

Amen...Fans, stop beating up Schafer and ourselves!  It has been a thrilling ride and I think we all agree that more is in store for us next fall.  Let's focus on the positive and leave the coaches to do the "dirty work" (recruiting, getting players in better shape in summer, etc.) during the off-season.  I, for one, can't wait for October (and I live in CA!). B-]  

[KenP]

I think it's hard to underestimate the value of a superstar for building a team capable of winning it all.

- 1985 RPI had Adam Oates
- 1986 Cornell had Niewendyck
- 1989 Harvard had Donato
- 1996 Vemont had Perrin and St Louis
- 2002 and 2003 Minnesota had Vanek
- 2003 Cornell had Murray

Just a few examples.  If one or two players have breakout years, we have the potential to be there next year.

[RatushnyFan]

[Q]nyiballs Wrote:

 [Q2]ben03 Wrote:

 [Q2]RatushnyFan Wrote:
But we lose this game probably 8 times out of 10.[/Q]
these odds would be flipped in our favor on a small sheet.[/Q]
I agree!!!!![/q]
You guys weren't watching the same game that I watched.

[ninian '72]

[Q]DeltaOne81 Wrote:

 The fact is, when the stakes are the highest, the team is playing their hardest competition.[/q]

On the money.  A bit of historical perspective:  St. Ned's teams didn't always finish their seasons as we had expected either.  Sandwiched between the championship seasons of 67 and 70 were two years in which the team lost a grand total of one game each season before arriving at the NCAA's.  Talk about high expectations.  In 68, they lost to UND in the semi's, and in 69 lost a heartbreaker in the finals to Denver 4-3, partly due to exhaustion after having beaten Michigan Tech in OT in the late game the night before.  (Ned complained about this scheduling issue, which I believe is why the semis are now on Thursday.)  After losing a lot of talent to graduation - including Dryden - no one expected the 70 team to have the juice to continue this kind of performance, but they surprised us.  Were they more talented than the previous two teams?  Probably not, but talented enough and lucky enough to pull off the perfect season.

Schafer's record speaks for itself, and I hope he spends many more years on the hill.   Consider the alternative of having him behind the bench of, say, Clarkson...

[RatushnyFan]

[Q]KenP Wrote:

 I think it's hard to underestimate the value of a superstar for building a team capable of winning it all.

- 1985 RPI had Adam Oates
- 1986 Cornell had Niewendyck
- 1989 Harvard had Donato
- 1996 Vemont had Perrin and St Louis
- 2002 and 2003 Minnesota had Vanek
- 2003 Cornell had Murray

Just a few examples.  If one or two players have breakout years, we have the potential to be there next year.
[/q]
I disagree with this.  All of these teams had several stars.

1985 - Besides Adam Oates, they had 3 other players with 59-72 points apiece.
1986 - besides Nieuwendyk we had Duanne Moeser and were we really that close to winning it all?
1989 - Donato, while he was MVP of the tourney, was 5th in scoring for Harvard.  Peter Ciavaglia, Lane Macdonald, CJ Young and Allen Bourbeau all had more points.  Exceptional speed across multiple lines.  They absolutely killed us at Lynah.  Macdonald is one of the best college hockey players that I've seen.
1996 - I'll agree with you here.
2002/2003 - Vanek wasn't on the '01-'02 championship squad.  In '02-'03 when they won, they also had four other significant scorers.

History would say that you need multiple scoring lines to win a championship as well as a great goalie and strong team defense.