> >>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.