>
>>As a Cornell fan, this scenario makes me think of one name:  Brian
>>McCutcheon.  He recruited some great talent, but nonetheless almost
>>killed the Cornell hockey tradition.  A new coach comes in, and POOF
>-
>>the players are playing at, if not beyond their abilities.
>
>I don't necessarily think there was anything magical about Cornell's
>success last year, nor do I think that it can be solely attributed to
>new
>coaches.  I think that the players' maturity, experience, dedication
>and
>motivation, along with the talent, had much to do with their success
>(yes,
>obviously the coaches do play a role in this).  In speaking with some
>of
>the upperclassmen, they themselves understood that there might be a
>couple
>of rocky years at first and it would take some fortitude to get
>through it,
>but that they could expect better things during their junior/senior
>years
>(this would have been last year).  This was discussed BEFORE
>McCutcheon
>ever left and Schafer started.  I'm not defending McCutcheon, nor am I
>discounting what Schafer has done (I don't know either of them); I'm
>just
>saying that I think there's a lot more to a team's success than just a
>change in coaches.
>
>Just my two cents...
>Kim
>
As a Cornell fan, I have another slant on this discussion:   I have been
asked several times if the 1995-96 Cornell team would have been as
successful under Brian McCutcheon as it was under Mike Schaefer.  My
answer was always NO!!  I am so sure of this because of one indisputable
fact.  This team had a great power play under Schaefer.  Under
McCutcheon, there never was nor never would have been any success on the
PP.
     Let's look at what a great PP can mean to a team  that never had
one.  The obvious improvement is that Cornell team with a great PP scores
more goals (a no brainer).  But, almost as important, the Cornell team
with a great PP didn't have to constantly overcome the negative effects
of ANOTHER PP failure.  The team with a great PP can build momentum on
the successes occurring during the PP.
     Almost all successful hockey teams are (at least) good on the PP.
The 1995-96 team was both successful & good on the PP.  They would not
have been good on the PP under McCutcheon-- that's fact!!.
-=>Bill<=-
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.