Tom Smith Tseng writes
 
>To most of us casual observers (and avid Big Red fans), it was painfully
>obvious since last season that our players were not big enough to play the
>kind of hockey Cornell was used to in the old days.
 
and there have been several other comments on the size of the current Cornell
team.
 
Let's look at some data for selected years. The following are based on the
entire varsity roster excluding goalies as given in programs for those years.
There could be a slight bias from the inclusion of those who didn't play much,
but a quick inspection suggests that this is not a problem.  And, programs are
not always totally accurate in listing height and weight.  But these data
should nevertheless make the basic point.
 
                 avg. wt.       avg. ht      # >= 190 lb    # >= 6'
             ---------------------------------------------------------
    1977-78       176.19        5'10.36"          4            7
    1985-86       186.58        5'11.33"         11           11
    1990-91       185.92        5'11.29"          9           12
    1992-93       178.23        5'11.70"          6           15
    1993-94       186.59        5'11.59"         11           13
 
 
The 1990-91 team was the last that we might tend to think of as big and
physical.  The 85-86 team (Nieuwendyk, Moeser, Norton, Schafer, Natyshak,
Dadswell) won the ECAC tournament.  The 77-78 team was probably the best
Cornell team never to make it to Boston and included Nethery, Tredway, Shier,
and Kerling; if it had had a top goalie it might have won a national
championship.  Brian Hayward arrived one year too late.  (I know that Steve
Napier had a better save percentage in 77-78 than Hayward did his first year,
but I don't think anyone would call Napier a top goalie.)
 
Teams have gotten considerably bigger over the years (the 60s teams are smaller
still than 77-78).  Last year's team clearly was an outlier, small by recent
standards (at least in terms of weight).  But this year's team can't be
considered small.  (In looking at the counts in the two right-most columns,
keep in mind that listed roster sizes are larger now than in the past:  27 this
year versus 21 in 77-78.)
 
I think this year's team has reasonable potential.  The problem in the area of
size is not size itself but often a lack of a physical presence by the team as
a whole and some of the big forwards in particular, as others have noted.  Some
of this can be attributed to McCutcheon, I think, just as can the lack of
intensity at times.  One would hope that these characteristics are not totally
incompatible with the discipline that his teams are known for.
 
The real question in regard to McCutcheon, however, has to be recruiting.
Obviously, we have had some high-level talent during his tenure.  I would be
interested to hear, from someone who knows the real story, which players he
has been responsible for bringing in and whether the common impression that
there has been a distinct fall off since Mike Schafer left is well founded
(the three most recent classes).
 
Steve Wilson, Jason Kendall, and Mike Sancimino have shown a good physical
presence at times.  But in some games, Cornell has been too easily knocked off
the puck, without returning the same style of play, and seems timid about
instigating physical play.  The BC game is an example, and BC was certainly not
a physically intimidating team.  That game, by the way, was not the total
disaster that Bill Fenwick described--a fairly interesting, decent skating
game, excepting the second half of the second period.  In fact, we have seen
some quite good hockey in Lynah this year.  But there can be no disagreement
that the team would be helped greatly by having one or two pure goal scorers.
 
Speaking of Brian Hayward, has anyone noticed that he is doing the color
commentary on the Anaheim TV games?  I've only watched when they have played
Calgary, but he seems to do a nice job.
 
Chuck Henderson         [log in to unmask]