HOCKEY-L Archives

- Hockey-L - The College Hockey Discussion List

Hockey-L@LISTS.MAINE.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Mime-Version:
1.0
Sender:
The College Hockey Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
Mark Lewin <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 14 Mar 1997 10:32:23 +0000
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Reply-To:
Mark Lewin <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (36 lines)
At 09:23 AM 3/14/97 -0500, Robert D. Flint wrote:
>I agree with Mark Lewan that the past is the past BUT...  I've had the
>opetunity to watch Cornell play six times this year and IMHO they weren't
>that good.  So how have they managed to never fall below second place in the
>ECAC and how are they currently heading for an NCAA bid?  I think this has a
>lot to do with Coach Shafer.
 
If you don't think they looked good, yet they never fell below second place
that implies one of 2 things. Either your standard for looking good is
too high or the teams they were competing against were less good. Those teams
that Cornell were competing against through the season were RPI and UVM so
I kind of think that the 2nd case is true. Not that both RPI and UVM didn't
have some flashes of brilliant play throughout the year, but they weren't
consistent enough to take one of the top 2 slots. During the beginning
of the year, Princeton set the pace. Clarkson, as usual, started out real
slow (although you couldn't tell that from the pasting they gave RPI
in Troy back in December), but as usual with their program, they came back
strong and won the ECAC. Cornell, on the other hand, was just plain consistent
and never lost their focus. When the dust settled, they were still there.
 
In response to your original statement, I don't think anyone disagrees
that Mike Shafer has done an outstanding job at Cornell for the past
two seasons. Its just that there is only one coach of the year selected
and this year happened to produce several outstanding candidates. It
just so happens that those voting felt that Stan Moore had more of the
coach of the year qualities than anyone else. I don't think that detracts
from the fine job Shafer has done.
 
And the fact of the matter is, Shafer and his team are still playing.
He may be disappointed he didn't win but I would guess that, given the
choice, he'd rather be playing still, as opposed to sitting home basking
in his award.
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2