1st Half

[jimmy]

Well my fellow lynah faithful, the first half of the season has come to a close.  I, for one, was very disappointed with the level of play on the ice, but they did finish 8-3-1 which is very respectable.  They are in a good position to make a run at the ECACHL and Ivy championships and still have a lot of room for improvement.  This is basically a thread just to see what everybody thinks about the first semester of hockey for our Big Red this year.

Here are a few of the points I saw:

1.  McCutcheon has become a very good player for us.  He seems to always be the guy in the middle of all the big plays and is comfortable out there.  To me, he's been the most impressive guy on the team so far.  

2.  McKee seems to be getting back into a little bit of a zone.  After a weak start to the season,  he seems to be hitting a groove going into the break.  The defense in front of him is getting better and he's making some of the more difficult saves (if you don't count the soft one against Princeton).  If he continues on this path, we may see a second semester that is similar to last year's incredible stretch.  

3.  The Freshmen are constantly improving.  I'm becoming more impressed with the Freshmen every weekend.  They were, as can be expected, hesitant at the start of the year but they seem to be turning it around.

4.  The offense still needs to get better.  McKee can hold the opponent to 0 or 1 goals all year long, but if the offense doesn't start to score a few a game, this team may be in trouble down the stretch.  

5.  Pokulok and Krantz need to get their heads in the game.  They just seem to be out of it, and this team may not get where it can if these two do not get their acts together.  

6.  Just an observation: Is it just me, or are there more missed passes at Lynah this season than in the past?  It just seems like a lot of these passes are missing sticks or jumping on their way.  Is it bad ice, or lack on concentration amongst Cornell and our oponents?

7.  And finally...why is Dave not wearing his costumes anymore?  Anybody?

Anyway...good luck on finals and LET'S GO RED!!!!!!

[imafrshmn]

In response to #7, I talked to Dave after last Friday's game against Princeton, and he mentioned that there was some censorship going on.

[kaelistus]

Is this censorship the fault of CU Athletics, the ECACHL, or the NCAA?

[RichH]

Well, jimmy, your post seems to be a summation of what has been said in every post-game thread the past month.

I'll point out that through 8 ECAC games, we have 11 points.  This matches Cornell's 8-game point total in '96, '01, '02, and '05.  (Of course, CU had 12 points in '04) Through the Schafer era, this is very typical for this point in the season.  I guess the big question is if this team performs after the holidays more like the '05 team or the '04 team.  I can see them going either way, frankly.

http://www.tbrw.info/cornellHistory/cornellPtsAbove500.html

[Robb]

8+3+1 = 12.

12/29 = 41.4%

I only point this out because we definitely need the time for improvement.  We certainly have not realized our potential, and those exta few games before the stretch run could make a huge difference in how the season ends up.  Technically, the season will be half over (14.5 games) at the 10:00 mark of the 2nd period of the RIT game.  Following that game, we have the 7 ECAC weekends to finish the season.  

Basically, I hope we can use the next 3 non-conference games to really tune up for the 2nd half run of ECAC games, and we hit the ground running at Quinnipiac on Jan 13.

[Ken \'70]

Cornell is 8-3-1 in 12 games against teams that are a combined 68 - 81 ( I dropped the ties for simplicity).  They've played only 3 games against teams with winning records (RPI, Union, Harvard) and are 1-1-1 against those with no home wins against winning teams.

They're looking "better" recently because they haven't played a team with a winning record in two weeks.  Of course they're going to look better, but just barely beating Q, not being at all impressive v. Princeton and two squeakers against Niagara make it clear where this team is going this season.

The attack is without an iota of creativity and the defense is pedestrian.  They'll be lucky to get a bye and I'd make them a bit less than 50-50 to make Albany.  Forget the national picture, can you imagine what a North Dakota or Michigan would do to the Red not to mention Wisconsin or Miami (hard to believe, isn't it)?

Time to start thinking about next year, let's see if Schafer can adjust and get some fast skaters instead of the hulking defensemen.  If anyone saw the first period or so of Harvard vs BU that was good hockey (on H's part).  The boys from Cambridge still can't play a complete game like that but it's much more entertaining than the Red right now, and a lot more likely to yield a W against a good team (witness their win against BC).

[KeithK]

[q]Time to start thinking about next year[/q]Oh come on.  It's way too early to give up on this season.  This team has plenty of talent and has an upside that is quite high.  With the 8-3-1 record the team is in a position to have a very successful season if they can get it together.

[redhair34]

I'm not going to try to convice you otherwise about our team; you are entitled to your opinion.  But, I agree with Keith's response.


[Q]Ken '70 Wrote:

  If anyone saw the first period or so of Harvard vs BU that was good hockey (on H's part).  [/q]

Yes I did see that game.  No doubt Harvard looked pretty good in the 1st period, but BU helped them look good.  BU looked absolutely dreadful in the first two periods of that game.  Their pp was about as effective as Princeton's.  I still can't believe Harvard settled for a tie.

[Scersk '97]

[Q]KeithK Wrote:
Oh come on.  It's way too early to give up on this season.[/q]

Agreed.  I'm sorry, Ken '70, but I just looked back at some of your posts this year and others, and you come off as kind of a crank with a tendency towards snap judgments that are not borne out in the long term.  I mean, calling for McKee and O'Byrne's heads in the Union game thread?  Hmmm...  taking those two out would be a recipe for long term success.

Rich is right above.  Thinking back, I can see some strong similarities to other Cornell teams.  I have a tendency to compare teams to my junior and senior year teams:  '96 was a blistering team that had a motivation problem to overcome held over from the McCutcheon (coach) era, whereas '97 was steady but sure, maximizing every second on the ice with a little less talent.  Take them or shove them, these are my analogies:

'98, '99 : Schafer :: '93 : McCutcheon
'94, '95 : '00, '01 :: limited potential : realization of limited potential
'04 : ? :: '78, '85 : ?
'96 : '03 :: '97 : '02, '05

So far this year, I think it's a motivation problem stemming from last year's disappointment and this year's departures.  They'll get over it, I hope.  '03 got over '02, '05 got over '04.  But give me a team with potential anytime.  My senior year was great, and they did what they could, but we knew we weren't going to the "Frozen Four."

P.S.  There's another effect going on here as well--the strong/weak league effect.  In '02 we were strong in a weak league, much like in '04.  In '03 we were far-and-away dominant in a weak league.  In '05, we seemed not-so-dominant in a strong league.  The ECAC, this year, looks like it is a pretty strong league.  The added bonus this year is a weak year in the WCHA (which, of course, means they'll only get 4 teams in the tournie) and, when compared to us, a weak year in HE.  We might be surprised how well ECAC teams fare during the holidays and later on next year.  We should all keep Clarkson and SLU in our best thoughts over the next couple of weeks.  They both play Vermont and Miami and their results will go a much longer way than ours in Florida in determining NCAA seeding.

[Ken \'70]

[Q]KeithK Wrote:

 [Q2]Time to start thinking about next year[/Q]
Oh come on.  It's way too early to give up on this season.  1. This team has plenty of talent and has an upside that is quite high.  With the 8-3-1 record 2. the team is in a position to have a very successful season if they can get it together.[/q]

What facts do you base these two statements on, certainly not a 1-1-1 record against barely winning teams.  

[Dafatone]

We beat Harvard, didn't we?  So maybe we're not looking great at this point, but that doesn't mean we can't improve.

A bad start doesn't mean it's time to give up.

[Ken \'70]

[Q]Scersk '97 Wrote:

Ken '70, but I just looked back at some of your posts this year and others, and you come off as kind of a crank [/q]

Let's review: I started my post out with a simple data analysis of our record and the quality of teams we had played and beaten.  I then made two qualitative statements I haven't seen anyone yet disagree with: the offense lacks creativity and the defense is average.  I conclude from this that we'll be lucky to make an impact in the ECAC let alone challenge the Wisconsins and NoDaks.

You respond in your first sentence, before any facts are brought to bear, with a personal attack.  You don't like my conclusions and instead of countering them with data or logic, you start calling names.

Grow up, stop being lazy, don't rely on name calling, and learn to support your positions based on facts (or be open minded enough to change a position if the facts can't be mustered).  It'll be a tough go for you, but if you ever get there it will be worth it.

[ben03]

has it occurred to anyone else that we might be seeing a shift in Coach's style of play/player size? i know it’s been mentioned here before but it seems that more and more teams in the league have started to play "big" and recruit to match our size. does anyone buy the "getting smaller and faster pitch?"

Current                                Incoming
Team Averages   Height      Weight     Recruit (# of)    Height      Weight
Dartmouth       6' 0.8"      189          (            6’ 0.5”      178 
Brown           6' 0.6"      192          (            6’ 1”        186 
Cornell         6' 0.6"      192          (6)            5’ 11”       178 
Colgate         6' 0.5"      194          (2)            5’ 10”       178
Harvard         6' 0.5"      191          (3)            6’ 0”        178
Yale            6' 0.4"      196          (3)            5’ 10”       175
RPI             6' 0.1"      191          (5)            5’ 11”       182 
Clarkson        6' 0.1"      190          (2)            6’ 2”        212 
Princeton       6' 0.1"      190          (7)            6’ 0”        183 
QU              6' 0.0"      182          (5)            6’ 0.6”      195 
SLU(t)          5' 11.8"     185          (4)            5’ 11”       174
Union           5' 9.1"      183          (7)            6’ 0”        182

http://www.uscho.com/m/ec/
http://members.aol.com/cheisenber/Recruit06.htm

i think this could be significant in that Coach may have realized to be successful at the highest level, we need to tweak our size and style to be consistently competitive on the national level. might the Big Red be getting smaller, faster, and more skilled? is this a product of our success or am I just wasting time on monday evening. totally random monday evening thoughts, carry on. :-)

[KeithK]

[Q]Ken '70 Wrote:

 [Q2]KeithK Wrote:

 [Q2]Time to start thinking about next year[/Q]
Oh come on.  It's way too early to give up on this season.  1. This team has plenty of talent and has an upside that is quite high.  With the 8-3-1 record  2. the team is in a position to have a very successful season if they can get it together.[/Q]
What facts do you base these two statements on, certainly not a 1-1-1 record against barely winning teams.  [/q]1) The team has nine NHL draft picks.  An imperfect metric, of course, but still indiicative of talent.  The team has two returning All-Americans (McKee 1st team, Moulson 2nd team).  This demonstrates high level performance at the college level.  From watching and listening to this team play over the past several years I have little reason to doubt that there is talent on the roster.

2) Upside: The team returns a significant portion of the roster from a team that was one overtime goal away from the FF.  As above, I feel they have on-paper talent.  They have played well in spurts so far this season.  The coach runs a system that has been able to generate dominating defensive teams.  Altogether I believe this indicates a team that has potential to compete at a high level again this season.  National champion contender?  Who knows? (although the team certainly set that as a goal for itself).

Last year's team had an early season stretch where we went 0-3-1 against teams that finished over .500.  That didn't prevent them from playing deep into March.

3) A record of 8-3-1 after 12 games is a good record.  It's better than a .700 winning percentage.  This means the team has not severely damaged themselves in the standings by playing relatively poorly over the first six weeks of the season.  So they're in position to make a run if they play better in the spring semester.

Don't get me wrong.  I'm not saying that everything is rosy.  There are problems.  The team isn't showing the consistent intensity that is needed to win night in and night out.  There are defensive and offensive issues, the powerplay has lost a lot of effectiveness and the goaltending hasn't been up to its usual standards.  If this continues it could very well be a very mediocre season.  But it's not worth giving up on yet - there's a lot of hockey to be played.

Besides, even a mediocre year of Cornell hockey would still be worth watching/following...

[KeithK]

The same thought had occurred to me and I've discussed it privately with other folks on this board.  This might be impacting our current performance.  But we still have plenty of size on the current roster.  If those guys aren't hitting and grinding in the corners it's not just because they're smaller.