Whither Mike Schafer?

[Beeeej]

Leaving aside for the moment whether Schafer has only himself to "blaim" for high expectations...

How exactly would the upcoming junior class remember being in the Frozen Four in 2003?!

Perpetual journalism curmudgeon,

Beeeej

[Trotsky]

Prior to Schafer's arrival, Cornell had had 20+ win seasons in 1 season (1986, his senior year) in the 16 seasons between 1980 and 1995.  In the 10 seasons since, Mike is 1 win short of *averaging* 20 wins!

[ben03]

[Q]RatushnyFan Wrote:
 [Q2]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.[/q]
i definitely watched the same game (in person) ... i’m not a fan of playing monday morning QB but[/I] the big sheet factored into the game more than most are likely to admit (even some Big Red fans). yes Minnesota controlled play through most of the first two periods. and i honestly believe this was not a surprise to coach and the boys. in fact, i think it was part of the plan. Lucia went on record as planning to out skate the Red as well as out shoot us and hoping to score on odds alone (mr. scorekeeper gave them more than a little help but that's another story all together and of no consequence to the actual game). they did accomplish both and still barely, just barely beat the boys in Red. my point, as has been said here many times before, is our style of play on NA ice will wear a team down much faster than on an Olympic sheet. therefore allowing our physical dominance to dictate play, create defensive miscues, and capitalizing. it essentially amounts to a waiting game, a very physical waiting game. so yes, i do believe we win that exact game 8-9/10 times on a small sheet. no question.

as an aside, the Minnesota fans i spoke with after the game were not so confident their speed/talent would beat us (it hadn’t for 60 minutes) and admitted they were more than a little apprehensive heading into OT. another told me he feared the bigger Red had kept it within reach without really dominating play in regulation and didn’t like their odds in OT.

[billhoward]

Another case of having to waffle on the stats. At some pont in the official history of Cornell hockey it's going to say, "The man who was to become Cornell's all-time winningest coach averaged [nearly, almost, just about, a shade under] 20 wins over his first ten seasons." One bleeping victory shy of 200 over the decade.

[Josh '99]

[Q]adamw Wrote:
Mike Schafer doesn't need my defense - His own peers have voted him on top many times.  But the biggest indication of great coaching is player improvement year over year, and this almost always happens with Cornell players.[/q]Speaking of which, does anyone know when the Penrose is announced?  Maybe this will be the year...  (*fingers crossed*)

[Q]ben03 Wrote:
i definitely watched the same game (in person) ... i’m not a fan of playing monday morning QB but the big sheet factored into the game more than most are likely to admit (even some Big Red fans). yes Minnesota controlled play through most of the first two periods. and i honestly believe this was not a surprise to coach and the boys. in fact, i think it was part of the plan. Lucia went on record as planning to out skate the Red as well as out shoot us and hoping to score on odds alone (mr. scorekeeper gave them more than a little help but that's another story all together and of no consequence to the actual game). they did accomplish both and still barely, just barely beat the boys in Red. my point, as has been said here many times before, is our style of play on NA ice will wear a team down much faster than on an Olympic sheet. therefore allowing our physical dominance to dictate play, create defensive miscues, and capitalizing. it essentially amounts to a waiting game, a very physical waiting game. so yes, i do believe we win that exact game 8-9/10 times on a small sheet. no question.[/q]Does anyone else remember the Mankato game?  And how it was tied midway through the 2nd before the physical play started to wear the speedy little guys down?  I think Sunday's game would've played out a lot more like that if it had been played on NHL ice.

[RatushnyFan]

[I think we were quite fortunate to be tied ...... and as I've said in other posts we played nearly a technically perfect game.  We don't beat this team on the smaller ice IMHO because they would still dominate us in terms of shots and chances.  And this team probably isn't the best team in the country.  Great team, great year, and certainly a great coach but we need more speed and more scoring talent to win a national championship.  I'll be cheering for us to get there.  

[KeithK]

I don't think we had the (on-paper) best team in the country this year either.  But neither did Minnesota.  On small ice they probably would have had many more shots, but so what?  Their puck control offense was certainly helped by the extra space.  I think there's much less of a territorial advantage on NA ice and we would have worn them down sooner.  Would we have won?  No guarantees at all.  But the game would've played out differently.

Of course, since the game wasn't on small ice and never will be this is all just unprovable opinion.  So we'll have to agree to disagree here.

[ben03]

[Q]KeithK Wrote:
 So we'll have to agree to disagree here.[/q]
Keith, you beat me to it ... looks like this is the best option :-)

[Facetimer]

As nyiballs one time agent, I think you all should cut him a break here.  Here are two reasons why he knows more than you about hockey and Mike Shafer:

1.  He is an experienced USCHO poster (509 career posts); and

2.  He was, at the peak of his career, the 4th best goalie at Cornell.

Cut him some slack.

[Steve M]

I think not only would we have worn down Minnesota faster, we would have had a lot more scoring opportunities as well.  The goal would be closer to the side boards and they wouldn't have been able to play keep away nearly as well.  I'd say Minny wins a game like Sunday's 70% of the time, but put it on NHL ice and take away their home advantage and I think  it's a tossup or slightly in our favor.  UNH was a much faster team than the 2002 and 2003 squads and neither of those games looked at all like Sunday's.  Harvard's win over us in Lake Placid in 2002, OTOH, at times did look like Sunday, although not nearly to the same extent.  People can call it an excuse, whining, etc., but I think an objective observer would come to the same conclusion; that Olympic size ice is a big disadvantage for Cornell vs. a significantly faster team.

I do agree with you that to win a NC we need more speed and scoring threats.  I hope one of our incoming freshman turns out to be a sniper to complement Moulson.  I also think the Abbotts and Hynes have the potential to score a lot more goals their senior year, much like the seniors this year improved.  I never played hockey beyond ponds and intramurals, but my impression is that it's a lot easier to improve one's passing & puck handling skills when you're already at the collegiate level, than to become a much faster skater over the summer.  When I saw my first game of the year (vs. BC), I immediately noticed how much better their passing was, and knew ours didn't compare to the WCHA powerhouses, having seen quite of few of their games by then.  Sure enough Minnesota wasn't just faster than us, but their passing was also much better.  Just like Cook improved his slap shot over the summer, wouldn't it be possible for the team to develop better passing and puck handling skills if they were to pair up with someone and commit to it?  Thoughts from anyone who's played competitively?

[RatushnyFan]

What about if we played on small ice but MN actually had their best forward (Hirsch) and one of their top PP defenseman (Goligoski) in the game?   ::screwy::

It's fine that we're all drinking the Kool-aid here on eLynah.  I thought that we lost the UNH game in 2003, although again we had a very good team, for just about the same reasons:  need a little more speed and a little more scoring punch.  Lenny had one goal that he would have liked back but I think the better team won (and then got clobbered by MN 5-1).

But I do have the faith that we'll get there.  Schafer should have no problems recruiting great goalies and d-men and one year we'll have a few snipers clicking together and we'll win the Big One.  We just differ on how close we've been the last couple of years.

[Steve M]

[Q]RatushnyFan Wrote:

 What about if we played on small ice but MN actually had their best forward (Hirsch) and one of their top PP defenseman (Goligoski) in the game?  [/q]  

In that case I think Minnesota has a slight advantage, but not 70:30.  I think the KRACH ratings would back me up on that.  I'm not saying they're perfect, but you can use them to set odds on games, if you adjust for other factors like injuries, rink size etc.

[Q]RatushnyFan Wrote: I thought that we lost the UNH game in 2003, although again we had a very good team, for just about the same reasons:  need a little more speed and a little more scoring punch.  Lenny had one goal that he would have liked back but I think the better team won (and then got clobbered by MN 5-1).

[/q]

Can't argue that we lost, but unlike this year, I don't and never will believe the better team won.   The waved off goal was a huge momentum swing and Lenny wasn't on his game until the 3rd period.  It was extremely unusual for him to let in 2 goals on 3 shots in the 2nd period.  Had we won, we might have had  problems with Minny's even better speed, but hockey results aren't transitive, so you can't say that we would have lost just because UNH lost 5-1.

In any case the point I was making was that UNH didn't skate circles around us in those games, while the Gophers did for most of the 1st two periods, hence ice size does make a difference.  I've watched a lot of hockey played by many different teams this year, and can assert that objectively.  After only several minutes of the Ohio St. game, I knew we would have our hands full, and then some, with Minnesota at the Mooch.

[ben03]

here are some number for thought, conclude whatever you like:

Atlantic Hockey: 8/9 play on 200'x85' 
                 1/9 (army)plays on 200'x90'

CCHA: 10/12 play on 200'x85
      2/12 (NMU, UAF) play on 200'x100'

CHA: 6/6 play on 200'x85'

ECACHL: 9/12 play on 200'x85'
        2/12 (UVM and DC) play on 200'x90'
        1/12 (sucks) plays on 204'x87' 

Hockey East: 4/9 play on 200'x85'
        1/9 (BC) plays on 200'x87'
             2/9 (N'estrn, BU) play on 200'x90'
        1/9 (Umass) plays on 200'x95' 
        1/9 (UHN) plays on 200'x100' 

WCHA:  3/10 (DU, MTU) play on 200'x85'
       1/10 (UMD) plays on 190'x85'
       1/10 (Wisc) plays on 200'x97'
       5/10 play on Olympic 200'x'100'

Total Division I hockey teams: 58 teams

69% (40/58) teams play on 200'x85'
14% (8/58) teams play on 200'x100'
9%   (5/58) teams play on 200'x90'
9%   (5/58) teams play on some variation in between

[Jeff Hopkins '82]

Anybody know the planned dimensions for the as-yet-theoretical new rink at Quinny?

[Scersk '97]

Wow, makes me want to go see a game at UMD.  Must be like ol' Walker.