Future Coaching?

KeithK

BearLover
So I'm not content not being awesome. If we're perpetually mediocre, I'll find some other hobbies to fill this time.

I think this gets to the heart of some of the disagreement here. For me, and I think some of the folks here, being a fan means supporting the team through hell and high water. Now that doesn't mean I won't let my team know it when they're playing like crap (I am a New Yorker) but I won't stop being a fan.

This perspective conflicts with the one that you and css228 are describing where you'll go do something else if the team is sufficiently successful....

KeithK has gutted the whole discussion. BearLover and css- by any definition you are fair-weather facetimers. Keith, and the many here who have responded earlier or given up in the face of css's intransigence, are Lynah Faithful.

abmarks

KeithK

BearLover
So I'm not content not being awesome. If we're perpetually mediocre, I'll find some other hobbies to fill this time.

I think this gets to the heart of some of the disagreement here. For me, and I think some of the folks here, being a fan means supporting the team through hell and high water. Now that doesn't mean I won't let my team know it when they're playing like crap (I am a New Yorker) but I won't stop being a fan.

This perspective conflicts with the one that you and css228 are describing where you'll go do something else if the team is sufficiently successful....

KeithK has gutted the whole discussion. BearLover and css- by any definition you are fair-weather facetimers. Keith, and the many here who have responded earlier or given up in the face of css's intransigence, are Lynah Faithful.

You don't care if the team wins, we get it.

BearLover

abmarks

KeithK

BearLover
So I'm not content not being awesome. If we're perpetually mediocre, I'll find some other hobbies to fill this time.

I think this gets to the heart of some of the disagreement here. For me, and I think some of the folks here, being a fan means supporting the team through hell and high water. Now that doesn't mean I won't let my team know it when they're playing like crap (I am a New Yorker) but I won't stop being a fan.

This perspective conflicts with the one that you and css228 are describing where you'll go do something else if the team is sufficiently successful....

KeithK has gutted the whole discussion. BearLover and css- by any definition you are fair-weather facetimers. Keith, and the many here who have responded earlier or given up in the face of css's intransigence, are Lynah Faithful.

You don't care if the team wins, we get it.

Hardly. I might be in favor of firing a crappy coach. But unlike you who'd "find some other hobbies" I'd still go to as many games as I could get tickets for because I love college hockey and the school, regardless of team record. You, however, will only be bothered to pay attention to a near-guaranteed winner. (Even your attempts at insult are weak).

abmarks

BearLover

abmarks

KeithK

BearLover
So I'm not content not being awesome. If we're perpetually mediocre, I'll find some other hobbies to fill this time.

I think this gets to the heart of some of the disagreement here. For me, and I think some of the folks here, being a fan means supporting the team through hell and high water. Now that doesn't mean I won't let my team know it when they're playing like crap (I am a New Yorker) but I won't stop being a fan.

This perspective conflicts with the one that you and css228 are describing where you'll go do something else if the team is sufficiently successful....

KeithK has gutted the whole discussion. BearLover and css- by any definition you are fair-weather facetimers. Keith, and the many here who have responded earlier or given up in the face of css's intransigence, are Lynah Faithful.

You don't care if the team wins, we get it.

Hardly. I might be in favor of firing a crappy coach. But unlike you who'd "find some other hobbies" I'd still go to as many games as I could get tickets for because I love college hockey and the school, regardless of team record. You, however, will only be bothered to pay attention to a near-guaranteed winner. (Even your attempts at insult are weak).

I'll admit that if we suck for like a decade I might pay less attention. But not by much; Cornell hockey is solidly my second favorite sports team (behind a certain lovable loser NY baseball franchise that actually almost won it all last year). And as a fan of that franchise, I have a pretty thick skin when it comes to tolerating losses.

Just because someone is okay with Schafer's performance as of late doesn't mean they don't mind losing. That's silly.

abmarks

BearLover

abmarks

KeithK

BearLover
So I'm not content not being awesome. If we're perpetually mediocre, I'll find some other hobbies to fill this time.

I think this gets to the heart of some of the disagreement here. For me, and I think some of the folks here, being a fan means supporting the team through hell and high water. Now that doesn't mean I won't let my team know it when they're playing like crap (I am a New Yorker) but I won't stop being a fan.

This perspective conflicts with the one that you and css228 are describing where you'll go do something else if the team is sufficiently successful....

KeithK has gutted the whole discussion. BearLover and css- by any definition you are fair-weather facetimers. Keith, and the many here who have responded earlier or given up in the face of css's intransigence, are Lynah Faithful.

You don't care if the team wins, we get it.

Hardly. I might be in favor of firing a crappy coach. But unlike you who'd "find some other hobbies" I'd still go to as many games as I could get tickets for because I love college hockey and the school, regardless of team record. You, however, will only be bothered to pay attention to a near-guaranteed winner. (Even your attempts at insult are weak).

Or we can refrain from the ad hominem altogether. My point is I live hundreds of miles south of Upstate NY now. In order to completely follow Cornell, I have to put in a fair amount of money into various fragmented streaming packages. That's not really worthwhile when I just come away angry at the product on the ice. That doesn't mean I care any less about Cornell Hockey. I WAS THE FRICKIN COWBELL GUY FOR TWO YEARS. I wouldn't have done that if I was the fair weather face-timer you accuse me of being.

All I'm saying is that at some point, and that point is different for everyone, the commitment you have to make just isn't worthwhile for the product you put out there. I'm using myself as a very real example of something thats happening en masse. It's not a coincidence that attendance has been dropping since the beginning of this decade. We all agree that is happening. It's directly tied to the fact that we don't put a good product on the ice. You may not care about the money you're putting down for this team, but students will.

Every year I heard students who loved hockey and going to hockey games say the tickets were too expensive to justify, especially given the quality of the team. These were people that would go whenever they had the chance to get a free or discounted ticket from someone. If the tradition really matters to you, then you should care about the mire of mediocrity that we're in, because it has consequences to the health of the program and Cornell hockey experience far beyond being slightly disappointed.

css228

Scersk '97
For "bad," see Clarkson or RPI, once proud programs that have fallen on really tough times. Clarkson hasn't made the semis since 2007, and RPI (2002) is "on the clock."

Look, I'm not going to look this stuff up for you anymore. If you can't come back with a real sense of perspective, there's no sense in continuing this.

We are not Clarkson or RPI. The expectations here are higher. I'm sorry I'm not satisfied with mediocrity.

Let me say it one more time: you lack historical perspective. RPI has won two national championships, with the most recent won more recently (1985) than our last one; Clarkson is one of the winningest programs all-time in college hockey and has been an unfortunate also-ran a few times, the last time (1970) to us!

If you think the expectations at Clarkson or RPI are lower than they are at Cornell, you're either ignorant or some sort of idiot elitist. At this point, I'll go with both.

I'm done feeding the trolls, now. Done. I refer the right honorable gentleman to what abmarks wrote.

IINM his contract is up. He doesn't need to be "fired," just not rehired. This was also the year his youngest graduated from IHS, so there are several moving parts. He may have other plans.

From what I have heard, I think it is a given that he will receive an offer of an extension. It will be interesting to see how long that is for. I doubt someone with Schafer's resume would accept a Tom Lasorda year-to-year contract, but it will say quite a bit whether he's offered say 3 or 5.

Scersk '97

css228

Scersk '97
For "bad," see Clarkson or RPI, once proud programs that have fallen on really tough times. Clarkson hasn't made the semis since 2007, and RPI (2002) is "on the clock."

Look, I'm not going to look this stuff up for you anymore. If you can't come back with a real sense of perspective, there's no sense in continuing this.

We are not Clarkson or RPI. The expectations here are higher. I'm sorry I'm not satisfied with mediocrity.

Let me say it one more time: you lack historical perspective. RPI has won two national championships, with the most recent won more recently (1985) than our last one; Clarkson is one of the winningest programs all-time in college hockey and has been an unfortunate also-ran a few times, the last time (1970) to us!

If you think the expectations at Clarkson or RPI are lower than they are at Cornell, you're either ignorant or some sort of idiot elitist. At this point, I'll go with both.

I'm done feeding the trolls, now. Done. I refer the right honorable gentleman to what abmarks wrote.

Glad to see your Cornell education taught you how to appropriately handle a difference of opinion.

BearLover

CowbellGuy
Long gone are the days when you only had to be better than a handful of teams in the ECAC to win the title. You can't expect to glide into Princeton and Union and steamroll them like you used to. There's impressive parity in the ECAC and college hockey as a whole.

I also disagree with this. In recent years Q and Yale have been just as dominant against everyone else in the ECAC as Cornell was in Schafer's best years. It's still possible, it's just being done by teams that aren't us.

Yale has made the NCAAs 6 of the last 8 years and won a national championship. Q has made the NCAAs four years in a row and was a national championship finalist. They were also #1 for much of that time. Both could win it all this year. Union had a 4-year stretch when they made the NCAAs every year, won the ECAC tournament three times, finished first in the ECAC three times, and won a national championship. They're the only one of these three programs to have shown any signs of slipping. At no point during Schafer's tenure did Cornell have an 8-year or 4-year stretch this good, nor did they ever get this far in the NCAAs. It's certainly possible to do much better than we're doing.

A while ago I asked if finding the great coach was so easy, then which of the ECAC school's coaches would fit that profile? People complain & complain, but no one can come with a group of coaches that they would like. Complain if you like, but if you can't show me that list, then maybe it's a lot harder to get that coach.

And who is the current Ghost player that we missed? Rather than just complain, show us who you think we missed in coaches and players.

Goddamn you people like talking in circles.

For all those who would love to see Schafer leave after this season, here's something else to think about.

Perhaps in professional sports all that matters is a coach's win/loss record. But this isn't professional sports. Schafer is coaching student athletes. I think many people would agree that a big part of his job is making sure that his guys do well in their classes, stay out of trouble, and complete their studies successfully. Do I think Coach Schafer is giving lectures in Managerial Accounting on the team bus? I do not. But he must be doing something right because his players are, I believe almost without exception, earning their Cornell degrees (unless they turn pro before doing so.) And unless I'm mistaken the team is often one of the top teams at Cornell in the competition they have within the varsity teams for best overall GPA.

The results of the recruiting efforts, and the coaching that impacts how many pucks wind up in the back of our net vs the back of their nets is only one part of the job. No matter what you think of how well he's doing that one (and many of us think he's doing it quite well), let's not forget the other one, which by all accounts seems to be one in which Mike Schafer is without question excelling.

css228
Or we can refrain from the ad hominem altogether.

I was specifically trying to choose my words to avoid having my post appear as an ad hominem. (I realize you may or may not have directed that at me as well.)

css228
All I'm saying is that at some point, and that point is different for everyone, the commitment you have to make just isn't worthwhile for the product you put out there. I'm using myself as a very real example of something thats happening en masse.

Yes, everyone has a different point. For a lot of the casual fans it's really easy to stop caring. Heck, most students probably stop caring about Cornell hockey the last time they walk out of Lynah. Always has been that way; maybe it's even more so these days with lots of different entertainment options. It was just noteworthy to me that someone who is such a hockey fan would be willing to stop caring so easily. Then again, you're still posting here so maybe you're just venting your frustration and we'll be having debates about analytics with you ten years from now.

Jim Hyla
A while ago I asked if finding the great coach was so easy, then which of the ECAC school's coaches would fit that profile? People complain & complain, but no one can come with a group of coaches that they would like. Complain if you like, but if you can't show me that list, then maybe it's a lot harder to get that coach.

I suspect certain folks would point to the jackass in Hamden or the team in New Haven as better coaches based on the results. Not that we'd ever get them even if we wanted them. It's still reasonable to complain about our coaches even when you don't necessarily have a set of replacements in mind. We're fans, not AD's.

That said, the likelihood of finding a good head coach is entirely relevant to the question of whether the school should get a new one. The last time Cornell there was a clear candidate who had coaching success and clear reason to want to come to Ithaca. (The program also appeared to be in a much deeper hole than it is in today, but that's beside the point.) Is there anyone out there who would fit that profile? At one point some of us here though Casey Jones was an obvious choice but he hasn't exactly torn it up in Potsdam. Any other Cornell alums out there coaching? Not that this would be a requirement but it certainly would help.

andyw2100
For all those who would love to see Schafer leave after this season, here's something else to think about.

Perhaps in professional sports all that matters is a coach's win/loss record. But this isn't professional sports. Schafer is coaching student athletes. I think many people would agree that a big part of his job is making sure that his guys do well in their classes, stay out of trouble, and complete their studies successfully. Do I think Coach Schafer is giving lectures in Managerial Accounting on the team bus? I do not. But he must be doing something right because his players are, I believe almost without exception, earning their Cornell degrees (unless they turn pro before doing so.) And unless I'm mistaken the team is often one of the top teams at Cornell in the competition they have within the varsity teams for best overall GPA.

The results of the recruiting efforts, and the coaching that impacts how many pucks wind up in the back of our net vs the back of their nets is only one part of the job. No matter what you think of how well he's doing that one (and many of us think he's doing it quite well), let's not forget the other one, which by all accounts seems to be one in which Mike Schafer is without question excelling.

Well, there you go again -pointing out what the program is really all about. How dare you not put the emphasis on winning and goals scored and NCAA appearances etc., etc. etc.

KeithK

Any other Cornell alums out there coaching?

There's only one I know of off top of my head. Dan Ratushny

toddlose

KeithK

Any other Cornell alums out there coaching?

There's only one I know of off top of my head. Dan Ratushny

Doug!

toddlose

KeithK

Any other Cornell alums out there coaching?

There's only one I know of off top of my head. Dan Ratushny

Well, his program seems to be in decline as well after some fabulous years.

I think the basic question is what accounts for the past 4-5 years of mediocre results, is it a bad recruiting class or two that didn't pan out as expected, or is it something more structural in the program, such that Yale and QU's recent dominance isn't just a blip but something more longterm.

css228
my opinion is if you're not in a position to get an at large bid, you didn't have a good season.

Got it, glad you're on record. Cornell is still alive for an at-large bid.

A year after a 11-14-6 season, we turn in a 16-11-7 season with a more difficult schedule. I see that as a positive step for a team few had high expectations for. Grabbing 1 or 2 more points in the regular season has us avoid Hamden, and probably moves the at-large chance closer to a 50-50 proposition.

An at-large bid is unlikely, yes, but when a team that is eliminated before championship weekend is still in the conversation, I'd say that says something, and it's not "mediocrity." Yale won their 2013 Championship with more losses than 2016 Cornell has. This is a good team. Not great, but good. With the development of young talent, I can see this team returning to the upper tier. For now, we're one step down. That happens, and it's OK. Ask Michigan, BU, and Minnesota. (OK, on second thought, don't ask Minnesota fans)

Reading through this thread, the thing that strikes me is the ease at throwing around the word "mediocre." In this section of the team's era, Cornell has remained in the top 1/3 of teams nationally. That's something that few schools can boast. Not Vermont, not RPI, New Hampshire, or Clarkson. These are our peers in terms of what hockey means to the culture of the institution. I know I come from a different era as css228, but I don't see how being in the top 20 nationally can be called "mediocre" so casually.

Look, at some point, there will be a time when it's time to move on. It was so even for an all-time legend like Richie Moran in Lacrosse. I'll accept when one party and/or the other decides that it's time. But I'm pretty glad that it's not up to the barkings on a pretty meaningless fan forum. That said, I do appreciate the general discourse and am glad to have differing opinions here.

RichH

css228
my opinion is if you're not in a position to get an at large bid, you didn't have a good season.

Got it, glad you're on record. Cornell is still alive for an at-large bid.

A year after a 11-14-6 season, we turn in a 16-11-7 season with a more difficult schedule. I see that as a positive step for a team few had high expectations for. Grabbing 1 or 2 more points in the regular season has us avoid Hamden, and probably moves the at-large chance closer to a 50-50 proposition.

An at-large bid is unlikely, yes, but when a team that is eliminated before championship weekend is still in the conversation, I'd say that says something, and it's not "mediocrity." Yale won their 2013 Championship with more losses than 2016 Cornell has. This is a good team. Not great, but good. With the development of young talent, I can see this team returning to the upper tier. For now, we're one step down. That happens, and it's OK. Ask Michigan, BU, and Minnesota. (OK, on second thought, don't ask Minnesota fans)

Reading through this thread, the thing that strikes me is the ease at throwing around the word "mediocre." In this section of the team's era, Cornell has remained in the top 1/3 of teams nationally. That's something that few schools can boast. Not Vermont, not RPI, New Hampshire, or Clarkson. These are our peers in terms of what hockey means to the culture of the institution. I know I come from a different era as css228, but I don't see how being in the top 20 nationally can be called "mediocre" so casually.

Look, at some point, there will be a time when it's time to move on. It was so even for an all-time legend like Richie Moran in Lacrosse. I'll accept when one party and/or the other decides that it's time. But I'm pretty glad that it's not up to the barkings on a pretty meaningless fan forum. That said, I do appreciate the general discourse and am glad to have differing opinions here.

Simple. I'm not judging us by our record. I'm judging us by our 49% CF in close situations. Good teams are positive possession teams. If you are under 50% possession you are mediocre. Our record, as I have said multiple times, was driven by an unrealistic PDO in the 1st half of the season. When you look at our advanced stats we're in the same league as UNO, Bentley, UND, Wisconsin, Miami etc. Some of those teams have good records, some don't, but none are great teams. Great teams have possession stats like Quinnipiac, North Dakota, Providence. In fact none of the top 5 teams in the pairwise is below 50% in CF in close situations. I care about process, and our process is bad/not repeatable.

I should add that if you have a good process, more often than not you will make the postseason. I'd be annoyed at missing the postseason with a team with 55% CF close, but in a ~30 game season weird things happen.

Also KeithK, my ad hominem comment wasn't directed at you. You've been nothing but respectful and while I disagree with you I've found your perspective interesting.

RichH
An at-large bid is unlikely, yes, but when a team that is eliminated before championship weekend is still in the conversation, I'd say that says something, and it's not "mediocrity." Yale won their 2013 Championship with more losses than 2016 Cornell has. This is a good team. Not great, but good.

Currently we are sitting at 16 in PWR. We finished last season at 17. For comparison, in 2007 and 2008 we finished at 22. Whether or not there is a systemic problem amounts to where we go from here. If we continue to move back up towards (and into) the top 10, this will be seen as a transitional period, like 1998-2001. If not...

css228
Simple. I'm not judging us by our record. I'm judging us by our 49% CF in close situations. Good teams are positive possession teams. If you are under 50% possession you are mediocre.

I respect that you value the advanced metrics. However, I feel that at this level with such a large disparity and range in skill, these metrics just aren't as useful as they probably are in the NHL. In the end, the scoreboard is all that matters to most people. If to you a team with 49.9% is mediocre and a team at 50.1% is good, then a team 60% must be fantastic. The national leader in CF close, 10% above your "mediocrity cliff" point is sitting at #24 in PWR. Not to mention CF% doesn't necessarily translate to possession, especially at this level. Shooting isn't the only skill.

Another thing to consider. Some of the teams above us are taking big hits in graduation this year.

Here are the graduating seniors with their rank in the top 25 of 2016 ECAC scoring:

Qpc: St. Denis (4)
Yal: Wilson (11)
Hvd: Vesey (1), Criscuolo (7)
SLU: Thompson (21), Ward (22)
Clk:
RPI:
Drt: Barre (6), Patterson (20)
Cor:

Here are juniors in the top 25; no idea on their flight risk.

Qpc: Tim Clifton (2), Anas (3), Toews (9)
Yal:
Hvd: Kerfoot (5)
SLU: Bayreuther (8), Smolcynski (15)
Clk:
RPI:
Drt:
Cor:

Teams in that group losing their primary goalie (with Sv% rank in conference):

Qpc: Garteig (1)
Yal:
Hvd:
SLU:
Clk: Lewis (4)
RPI: Kasdorf (7)
Drt: Grant (9)
Cor:

tl;dr: Harvard takes a big hit. Q takes a big hit and could be utterly devastated (this is a reason to root for Q to win the NC$$ if we don't). Everyone has at least one important graduation except us.

Trotsky
Another thing to consider. Some of the teams above us are taking big hits in graduation this year.

Here are the graduating seniors with their rank in the top 25 of 2016 ECAC scoring:

Qpc: St. Denis (4)
Yal: Wilson (11)
Hvd: Vesey (1), Criscuolo (7)
SLU: Thompson (21), Ward (22)
Clk:
RPI:
Drt: Barre (6), Patterson (20)
Cor:

Here are juniors in the top 25; no idea on their flight risk.

Qpc: Tim Clifton (2), Anas (3), Toews (9)
Yal:
Hvd: Kerfoot (5)
SLU: Bayreuther (8), Smolcynski (15)
Clk:
RPI:
Drt:
Cor:

Teams in that group losing their primary goalie (with Sv% rank in conference):

Qpc: Garteig (1)
Yal:
Hvd:
SLU:
Clk: Lewis (4)
RPI: Kasdorf (7)
Drt: Grant (9)
Cor:

tl;dr: Harvard takes a big hit. Q takes a big hit and could be utterly devastated (this is a reason to root for Q to win the NC$$ if we don't). Everyone has at least one important graduation except us.

Thought I saw kasdorf has one more year of eligibility? I may be wrong but swore I saw it somewhere. Unless I missed him signing.

RichH

css228
Simple. I'm not judging us by our record. I'm judging us by our 49% CF in close situations. Good teams are positive possession teams. If you are under 50% possession you are mediocre.

I respect that you value the advanced metrics. However, I feel that at this level with such a large disparity and range in skill, these metrics just aren't as useful as they probably are in the NHL. In the end, the scoreboard is all that matters to most people. If to you a team with 49.9% is mediocre and a team at 50.1% is good, then a team 60% must be fantastic. The national leader in CF close, 10% above your "mediocrity cliff" point is sitting at #24 in PWR. Not to mention CF% doesn't necessarily translate to possession, especially at this level. Shooting isn't the only skill.

That's my biggest question with using advanced metrics. It may be that the data is gettinggood enough at the NHL level to have solid predictive capability (I don't follow that aspect well enough to know). But you have to be wary about applying the same conclusions to a different level with, as RichH says, a greater variation in talent levels. The qualitative trends are unlikely to change (possession better than not, for instance) but the numbers probably do.

For instance, one point that's been discussed is shot percentage. Looking at the top 50 scorers in the NCAA this year, 27 of them have shot percentages over 15% and 16 are over 18%. This could just be a reflection of small sample sizes because of fewer games. A quick scan of some of previous years for those guys shows some variability. But I suspect that the spread in "true talent" on this metric will be greater in college. If nothing else, the talent level of the opposing goalies has a bigger spread.

toddlose
Thought I saw kasdorf has one more year of eligibility? I may be wrong but swore I saw it somewhere. Unless I missed him signing.

He may. Ralph will certainly know.

toddlose

Thought I saw kasdorf has one more year of eligibility? I may be wrong but swore I saw it somewhere. Unless I missed him signing.

I believe he missed almost an entire year, so he's possibly coming back for a post-grad year with a medical redshirt. It's not a done deal though.

pfibiger

toddlose

Thought I saw kasdorf has one more year of eligibility? I may be wrong but swore I saw it somewhere. Unless I missed him signing.

I believe he missed almost an entire year, so he's possibly coming back for a post-grad year with a medical redshirt. It's not a done deal though.

At RPI's gathering at The Nines, Seth Appert's Hair said he's coming back for another year as a graduate student.

Trotsky

toddlose
Thought I saw kasdorf has one more year of eligibility? I may be wrong but swore I saw it somewhere. Unless I missed him signing.

He may. Ralph will certainly know.

He does have another year but I think it would be foolish for him to wait if he can negotiate a signing bonus. He has had significant injury issues. I wish him a long and prosperous career but he may be too fragile for that. It makes sense for him to sign.

marty

Trotsky

toddlose
Thought I saw kasdorf has one more year of eligibility? I may be wrong but swore I saw it somewhere. Unless I missed him signing.

He may. Ralph will certainly know.

He does have another year but I think it would be foolish for him to wait if he can negotiate a signing bonus. He has had significant injury issues. I wish him a long and prosperous career but he may be too fragile for that. It makes sense for him to sign.

Just reported on Twitter that Kasdorf signed with the Sabres

NEWS: The Sabres have signed goaltender Jason Kasdorf to an entry-level contract. Details: [t.co] pic.twitter.com/1sprNKoVJY

— Buffalo Sabres (@BuffaloSabres) March 14, 2016

He's married?

Trotsky
He's married?

I think he and his wife are expecting their first child.

marty

Trotsky
He's married?

I think he and his wife are expecting their first child.

Oof.



"Too much, too soon."

Murray or Derraugh?

Trotsky

toddlose
Thought I saw kasdorf has one more year of eligibility? I may be wrong but swore I saw it somewhere. Unless I missed him signing.

He may. Ralph will certainly know.

It's been answered, but since you asked me:

He was a Senior but got a medical redshirt from his soph season when he only played in two games. Although he said when asked during the year that he had not made up his mind whether he would return, no one expected him back. A telling factor is that the goalie who was recruited for next season, Chase Perry, is a transfer from Colorado College who would lose another season of eligibility if he was delayed until 2017.

He is indeed married with a child on the way.

If I were a college hockey player, I would prefer to play on a team that focused more on creative offense than on a structured and disciplined defense. Further, its more fun to score goals than it is to block shots.


Despite that, I predict Schafer will be re-hired.

It should be noted that despite my displeasure with the past few years, I like Schafer. I want to see him win; part of the reason I pull so strongly for Cornell is because I think he deserves it. He means a lot to Cornell Hockey--and that only makes the recent mediocre seasons tougher to swallow. It's not mutually exclusive, however, for him to also not be the best coach for the program. Realistically, though, he isn't going anywhere, and if the ship is in fact sinking, I'm ready to go down with it...

BearLover
It should be noted that despite my displeasure with the past few years, I like Schafer. I want to see him win; part of the reason I pull so strongly for Cornell is because I think he deserves it. He means a lot to Cornell Hockey--and that only makes the recent mediocre seasons tougher to swallow. It's not mutually exclusive, however, for him to also not be the best coach for the program. Realistically, though, he isn't going anywhere, and if the ship is in fact sinking, I'm ready to go down with it...

The ship is not sinking. We're the first team out of the NC$$ this year. While this looks like a steady decline, it should also be noted that in 21 seasons Schafer has coached 10 worse than or equal to this year. The thing we haven't done since 2008-10 is follow up an improvement with another improvement. We finished with almost the same record we had in 2008 overall record-wise, but because of the overall improvement of the conference we finished in 8th rather than 5th.

I think we have a good core to build around, and while I will miss the seniors we were not hit the way some of our rivals will be. We're in an era with a very strong ECAC, so whereas in the past we had to be the best in the league by far to have a shot in the NC$$, now we really need only crack the top 3 -- something that is in reach.

Trotsky
We're in an era with a very strong ECAC, so whereas in the past we had to be the best in the league by far to have a shot in the NC$$, now we really need only crack the top 3 -- something that is in reach.

Back when the WCHA was dominating, it would have been a joke to say that the 8th place ECAC team was still alive for an at large bid while idle championship weekend. The league has come a long way. Rising tide lifts all boats, etc.

Chris '03
Rising tide lifts all boats, etc.

This has been debated ad nauseam, but now we have some more data points, so I'll ask again: how has this "rising tide" lifted Cornell's boat? Our best teams, and our best chances at winning an ECAC and national championship, were when the conference was bad. There's nothing to suggest our talent is better now, and we're clearly making the NCAAs and the final weekend of the ECAC less. Every season there's an argument about firing our coach. So, I want to know: how has Cornell benefited from Q and Yale whooping our asses every year?

BearLover

Chris '03
Rising tide lifts all boats, etc.

This has been debated ad nauseam, but now we have some more data points, so I'll ask again: how has this "rising tide" lifted Cornell's boat? Our best teams, and our best chances at winning an ECAC and national championship, were when the conference was bad. There's nothing to suggest our talent is better now, and we're clearly making the NCAAs and the final weekend of the ECAC less. Every season there's an argument about firing our coach. So, I want to know: how has Cornell benefited from Q and Yale whooping our asses every year?

The scariest thing about getting whooped is that the fans are not showing up because of it. Lynah was our main recruiting advantage. That said when does Schafer become accountable? Currently we have made the tournament 1 time in 6 years. Considering 27% of teams make the tourney we are accepting mediocrity if we consider the results acceptable. That may be the case, but it's a hard pill to swallow for such a proud program.

cuhockey93

BearLover

Chris '03
Rising tide lifts all boats, etc.

This has been debated ad nauseam, but now we have some more data points, so I'll ask again: how has this "rising tide" lifted Cornell's boat? Our best teams, and our best chances at winning an ECAC and national championship, were when the conference was bad. There's nothing to suggest our talent is better now, and we're clearly making the NCAAs and the final weekend of the ECAC less. Every season there's an argument about firing our coach. So, I want to know: how has Cornell benefited from Q and Yale whooping our asses every year?

The scariest thing about getting whooped is that the fans are not showing up because of it. Lynah was our main recruiting advantage. That said when does Schafer become accountable? Currently we have made the tournament 1 time in 6 years. Considering 27% of teams make the tourney we are accepting mediocrity if we consider the results acceptable. That may be the case, but it's a hard pill to swallow for such a proud program.

That's something I forgot to mention in my post: the Lynah Faithful, at least in part because we don't win as much anymore, is a shell of its former self.

BearLover

Chris '03
Rising tide lifts all boats, etc.

This has been debated ad nauseam, but now we have some more data points, so I'll ask again: how has this "rising tide" lifted Cornell's boat? Our best teams, and our best chances at winning an ECAC and national championship, were when the conference was bad. There's nothing to suggest our talent is better now, and we're clearly making the NCAAs and the final weekend of the ECAC less. Every season there's an argument about firing our coach. So, I want to know: how has Cornell benefited from Q and Yale whooping our asses every year?

Cornell benefits in two ways: First, the strong ECAC means that we almost made the tournament after finishing 8th in the league. Better teams in the league means better SoS means better tournament position. Second, playing in a stronger league means that you're consistently playing better competition, which prepares the team for the tournament if and when we get in. For years we worried about this on here, especially in years where the out of conference slate looked weak; I don't think this is much of an issue right now.

I think the better league is very much a good thing for Cornell. But you still have to win, which we didn't do enough of this year.

BearLover
It should be noted that despite my displeasure with the past few years, I like Schafer. I want to see him win; part of the reason I pull so strongly for Cornell is because I think he deserves it. He means a lot to Cornell Hockey--and that only makes the recent mediocre seasons tougher to swallow. It's not mutually exclusive, however, for him to also not be the best coach for the program. Realistically, though, he isn't going anywhere, and if the ship is in fact sinking, I'm ready to go down with it...

I think this was very much worth posting and noting. The back and forth arguments we've had on here have often been pretty negative. It's worth remembering that most of the folks who post on here aren't a bunch of internet trolls. We all want Cornell to win (a few of our valued guests aside ) and just have different opinions on the best way to have that happen.

KeithK

BearLover

Chris '03
Rising tide lifts all boats, etc.

This has been debated ad nauseam, but now we have some more data points, so I'll ask again: how has this "rising tide" lifted Cornell's boat? Our best teams, and our best chances at winning an ECAC and national championship, were when the conference was bad. There's nothing to suggest our talent is better now, and we're clearly making the NCAAs and the final weekend of the ECAC less. Every season there's an argument about firing our coach. So, I want to know: how has Cornell benefited from Q and Yale whooping our asses every year?

Cornell benefits in two ways: First, the strong ECAC means that we almost made the tournament after finishing 8th in the league. Better teams in the league means better SoS means better tournament position. Second, playing in a stronger league means that you're consistently playing better competition, which prepares the team for the tournament if and when we get in. For years we worried about this on here, especially in years where the out of conference slate looked weak; I don't think this is much of an issue right now.

I think the better league is very much a good thing for Cornell. But you still have to win, which we didn't do enough of this year.

Well,
1. There's a reason why we didn't win. It's because the league is better.
2. I still think it was considerably easier to make the tournament before, even accounting for our better SOS these days. Too small a sample to say for sure, but early signs point to that being the case. Don't forget an automatic ECAC bid is way more likely when the conference stinks.
3. We almost made the tournament despite a .500 in-league record largely because we went 5-1-1 against difficult opposition out-of-league.
4. Relatedly, Cornell can schedule strong out-of-conference opponents to prepare itself for the NCAAs.

The benefits of a strong league that you noted are real, but I think they are relatively minor. Anything can happen in the NCAAs. You just need to get in.

Was Cornell's OOC slate that impressive? Final PWR:
58
58
8
4
31
38
38

Eight ECAC teams were top 25.

We've gone from a situation where the conference was only getting 2 teams to the tourney with an outside shot at 3 to one in which it's now getting 3 with an outside shot at 4.

ECAC Bids by year (since adoption of 16-team tourney)

Yr ECAC Teams
-- ---
03 2
04 1
05 3
06 2
07 2
08 2
09 3
10 2
11 3
12 2
13 3
14 3
15 3
16 3

ECAC teams are also getting farther now than before.

Yr SF!
-- ---
02 000
03 100
04 000
05 000
06 000
07 000
08 000
09 000
10 000
11 000
12 100
13 221
14 111
15 000
16 ???

I believe this will translate to a good effect for Cornell over time. We just happen to have hit a down period that exactly correlates to the league strengthening (maybe coincidentally, more likely not).

Seems to me that this is an amplifier: if you're good the improvement puts you in an even better position to go deep; if you're not then the mountain gets steeper. We've traditionally been good, over a long, long period (almost the entire history of the conference), with a few brief interludes of mediocrity (and almost no periods of outright badness), so unless something has systemically changed for us relative to the rest of the league, in the long run this should be A Good Thing for us more than any other conference program.

That second chart is misleading in not showing first round NCAA success. Cornell has been very successful in the opening round under Schafer. They've been 1 goal away from the Frozen Four so many times, and 1 goal away from the finals once, that I find it very hard to believe that Cornell will be in a better chance to win it all in the future than it was when the ECAC stunk. Yale's and Union's miracle runs don't suddenly make it that Cornell wasn't a few bounces away from playing for the title on a number of occasions.

This is important: Cornell was ~.500 in the NCAAs when the ECAC stunk. .500! You can't honestly expect a better record than that when you're playing against the very best teams in the country. It simply isn't true that Cornell was completely outmatched back then. We held our own. And we certainly look no better when we play BU, Prov, etc. now.

drs48
It astounds me that "Faithful" are accepting/defending mediocrity, I'm done......fire him.

+1

drs48
It astounds me that "Faithful" are accepting/defending mediocrity, I'm done......fire him.

At a bare minimum, I would insist on new asst/assoc coaches to bring new ideas/strategies & recruiting possibilities into the mix.... If Schafer refuses, show him the door!

BearLover
Yale's and Union's miracle runs don't suddenly make it that Cornell wasn't a few bounces away from playing for the title on a number of occasions.

Yale's run was a miracle. Union's wasn't -- they were the best team in the country that year.

We won't be able to compare apples to apples until Cornell hits a good stretch with the league also strong. So let's do that.

redice

drs48
It astounds me that "Faithful" are accepting/defending mediocrity, I'm done......fire him.

At a bare minimum, I would insist on new asst/assoc coaches to bring new ideas/strategies & recruiting possibilities into the mix.... If Schafer refuses, show him the door!

Yes, exactly, we have to get rid of the bums that brought us Angelo, Vandelaan, etc. and get some recruits that can lift the team to another level. Ben was so obviously ineffective at Q too!

marty

redice

drs48
It astounds me that "Faithful" are accepting/defending mediocrity, I'm done......fire him.

At a bare minimum, I would insist on new asst/assoc coaches to bring new ideas/strategies & recruiting possibilities into the mix.... If Schafer refuses, show him the door!

Yes, exactly, we have to get rid of the bums that brought us Angelo, Vandelaan, etc. and get some recruits that can lift the team to another level. Ben was so obviously ineffective at Q too!

KeithK: This is exactly the kind of shit I was referring to!!! Marty, you don't have to agree with me... But, you also don't have to be so fucking sarcastic about it.... Maybe Angello & Vanderlaan are good freshman.... But, the results with those good freshmen are still mediocre.....

Furthermore, if you weren't in such a hurry to jump me with your sarcastic shit, maybe you would take the time to spell their names correctly....Geez!!! Get over yourself!!!!

redice

marty

redice

drs48
It astounds me that "Faithful" are accepting/defending mediocrity, I'm done......fire him.

At a bare minimum, I would insist on new asst/assoc coaches to bring new ideas/strategies & recruiting possibilities into the mix.... If Schafer refuses, show him the door!

Yes, exactly, we have to get rid of the bums that brought us Angelo, Vandelaan, etc. and get some recruits that can lift the team to another level. Ben was so obviously ineffective at Q too!

KeithK: This is exactly the kind of shit I was referring to!!! Marty, you don't have to agree with me... But, you also don't have to be so fucking sarcastic about it.... Maybe Angello & Vanderlaan are good freshman.... But, the results with those good freshmen are still mediocre.....

Furthermore, if you weren't in such a hurry to jump me with your sarcastic shit, maybe you would take the time to spell their names correctly....Geez!!! Get over yourself!!!!

In addition to the attitude, his logic is faulty. Citing a couple of successful recruits while ignoring the greater number of duds isn't going to convince anybody.

BearLover

redice

marty

redice

drs48
It astounds me that "Faithful" are accepting/defending mediocrity, I'm done......fire him.

At a bare minimum, I would insist on new asst/assoc coaches to bring new ideas/strategies & recruiting possibilities into the mix.... If Schafer refuses, show him the door!

Yes, exactly, we have to get rid of the bums that brought us Angelo, Vandelaan, etc. and get some recruits that can lift the team to another level. Ben was so obviously ineffective at Q too!

KeithK: This is exactly the kind of shit I was referring to!!! Marty, you don't have to agree with me... But, you also don't have to be so fucking sarcastic about it.... Maybe Angello & Vanderlaan are good freshman.... But, the results with those good freshmen are still mediocre.....

Furthermore, if you weren't in such a hurry to jump me with your sarcastic shit, maybe you would take the time to spell their names correctly....Geez!!! Get over yourself!!!!

In addition to the attitude, his logic is faulty. Citing a couple of successful recruits while ignoring the greater number of duds isn't going to convince anybody.

I think it's worth pointing out that we did have a better season (using PWR, KRACH or RPI) than 75% of the other teams playing D-1 NCAA hockey. The sky is not falling.

jkahn
I think it's worth pointing out that we did have a better season (using PWR, KRACH or RPI) than 75% of the other teams playing D-1 NCAA hockey. The sky is not falling.

I think there are 3 things going on that make it feel worse than one would get from an objective review of this year's record.

1. We haven't made the NCAAs for four straight seasons -- an entire graduating class. To those of us who remember the 4, 6, and 8 team tourneys that doesn't seem that long, but with a 16-team tourney one should expect Cornell to make the tourney about 50% of the time. The fact that we were the first team cropped twice in those four years doesn't change the fact that we have no NC$$ games over that stretch, which is disturbing.

2. The 2015 graduating class was awesomely talented and by every measure I think we all agree they greatly underachieved. Whatever that was -- chemistry, maturity, work ethic, The System -- it makes us worry that even if we get talent it may not convert to wins.

3. The particular contour of this year, an amazing start and then a long, depressing collapse, left everybody with a bad taste in their mouth.

Trotsky

jkahn
I think it's worth pointing out that we did have a better season (using PWR, KRACH or RPI) than 75% of the other teams playing D-1 NCAA hockey. The sky is not falling.

I think there are 3 things going on that make it feel worse than one would get from an objective review of this year's record.

1. We haven't made the NCAAs for four straight seasons -- an entire graduating class. To those of us who remember the 4, 6, and 8 team tourneys that doesn't seem that long, but with a 16-team tourney one should expect Cornell to make the tourney about 50% of the time. The fact that we were the first team cropped twice in those four years doesn't change the fact that we have no NC$$ games over that stretch, which is disturbing.

2. The 2015 graduating class was awesomely talented and by every measure I think we all agree they greatly underachieved. Whatever that was -- chemistry, maturity, work ethic, The System -- it makes us worry that even if we get talent it may not convert to wins.

3. The particular contour of this year, an amazing start and then a long, depressing collapse, left everybody with a bad taste in their mouth.

I'll admit seeing section B only 2/3's full for a playoff game has caused me to think with emotions and not my head

Trotsky

jkahn
I think it's worth pointing out that we did have a better season (using PWR, KRACH or RPI) than 75% of the other teams playing D-1 NCAA hockey. The sky is not falling.

I think there are 3 things going on that make it feel worse than one would get from an objective review of this year's record.

1. We haven't made the NCAAs for four straight seasons -- an entire graduating class. To those of us who remember the 4, 6, and 8 team tourneys that doesn't seem that long, but with a 16-team tourney one should expect Cornell to make the tourney about 50% of the time. The fact that we were the first team cropped twice in those four years doesn't change the fact that we have no NC$$ games over that stretch, which is disturbing.

2. The 2015 graduating class was awesomely talented and by every measure I think we all agree they greatly underachieved. Whatever that was -- chemistry, maturity, work ethic, The System -- it makes us worry that even if we get talent it may not convert to wins.

3. The particular contour of this year, an amazing start and then a long, depressing collapse, left everybody with a bad taste in their mouth.

Mitigating the negatives was watching this team both in person and via video. They seemed improved over last year. That's just my opinion but it colors the whole season for me. The games vs top teams were on balance a joy.

Trotsky
3. The particular contour of this year, an amazing start and then a long, depressing collapse, left everybody with a bad taste in their mouth.

I think this is the biggest factor. If we had been miserable in the fall, going 0-5-2 in November, and then had a great send half and ended up with the same record/position I think people would feel a lot more positively about the team.

The two scenarios aren't exactly the same - you are supposed to play better as the season goes on, especially with a young team. But looking over the whole body of work I think there are lots of reasons to expect better things next season.

marty
Mitigating the negatives was watching this team both in person and via video. They seemed improved over last year. That's just my opinion but it colors the whole season for me. The games vs top teams were on balance a joy.

It's not just your opinion. This was a significantly better team that the ones of the prior three seasons. If they got lucky in the first half they got as unlucky in the second half. They had one putrid weekend -- the Dartmouth and Harvard games at Lynah -- which because it was immediately followed by yet another zero point weekend (the North Country games, both ot losses) was amplified in our impressions.

They seem to be moving towards an up-tempo style that sacrifices 1-2 GA to score 2-3 GF. I am so OK with that.

Scersk '97

css228

Scersk '97
For "bad," see Clarkson or RPI, once proud programs that have fallen on really tough times. Clarkson hasn't made the semis since 2007, and RPI (2002) is "on the clock."

Look, I'm not going to look this stuff up for you anymore. If you can't come back with a real sense of perspective, there's no sense in continuing this.

We are not Clarkson or RPI. The expectations here are higher. I'm sorry I'm not satisfied with mediocrity.

Let me say it one more time: you lack historical perspective. RPI has won two national championships, with the most recent won more recently (1985) than our last one; Clarkson is one of the winningest programs all-time in college hockey and has been an unfortunate also-ran a few times, the last time (1970) to us!

If you think the expectations at Clarkson or RPI are lower than they are at Cornell, you're either ignorant or some sort of idiot elitist. At this point, I'll go with both.

I'm done feeding the trolls, now. Done. I refer the right honorable gentleman to what abmarks wrote.

Speaking of Clarkson, I was over on their forum and they not surprisingly have a similar thread. Somehow they are exponentially more pessimistic than even this thread. The general consensus over there appears to be that they can't compete anymore on a national level due to location and increased competition, and they will never recapture former glory. I sure hope we don't get to that place, and more importantly, if they are correct we shouldn't be using them to justify our poor results haha

Well, Schafer, Mark Dennehy, and Paul Pearl are apparently the three contenders who interviewed for the head coach position at UMass, so you can't fire him if he leaves.

[www.collegehockeynews.com]

CowbellGuy
Well, Schafer, Mark Dennehy, and Paul Pearl are apparently the three contenders who interviewed for the head coach position at UMass, so you can't fire him if he leaves.

[www.collegehockeynews.com]

Interesting. Seems like it would be an odd career choice (leaving your Alma Mater for a school that doesn't exactly have a top hockey program or tradition.) Then again, it could mean Andy agrees with some of the folks here and has put the writing on the wall. Or maybe with the kids out of school Schafer is looking to get out of Ithaca. Who knows?

KeithK

CowbellGuy
Well, Schafer, Mark Dennehy, and Paul Pearl are apparently the three contenders who interviewed for the head coach position at UMass, so you can't fire him if he leaves.

[www.collegehockeynews.com]

Interesting. Seems like it would be an odd career choice (leaving your Alma Mater for a school that doesn't exactly have a top hockey program or tradition.) Then again, it could mean Andy agrees with some of the folks here and has put the writing on the wall. Or maybe with the kids out of school Schafer is looking to get out of Ithaca. Who knows?

Is it possible that since Schafer's contract is expiring this year, this is just something he is doing for contract negotiation purposes?

andyw2100
Is it possible that since Schafer's contract is expiring this year, this is just something he is doing for contract negotiation purposes?

Always be ready to leave, they say. And one suspects that Andy is not the kind of boss that inspires loyalty.

PS I've always thought Paul Pearl (or Shaun Hannah, if he's still in the game) would be an excellent candidate, should it come to that.

cuhockey93
Speaking of Clarkson, I was over on their forum and they not surprisingly have a similar thread. Somehow they are exponentially more pessimistic than even this thread. The general consensus over there appears to be that they can't compete anymore on a national level due to location and increased competition, and they will never recapture former glory. I sure hope we don't get to that place, and more importantly, if they are correct we shouldn't be using them to justify our poor results haha

They're wrong, I think. Scholarships well distributed can cure many ills.

Anyway, they're just a bunch of cranks shooting their mouths off on an internet forum. What do they know?

CowbellGuy
you can't fire him if he leaves

TFF

CowbellGuy
Well, Schafer, Mark Dennehy, and Paul Pearl are apparently the three contenders who interviewed for the head coach position at UMass, so you can't fire him if he leaves.

[www.collegehockeynews.com]

Works for me. Let's hope UMass doesn't realize the horrible mistake they'd be making.

Schafer would make UMass credible IMO. They'd be lucky to have him. Wonder if the Hockey East/ability to offer scholarships appeals to him. I imagine it would be difficult for him to leave.

I hope that Schafer doesn't leave. Ratushny is an interesting idea as mentioned above, but his Red Bull tenure has gone well and he's also coaching the Austrian National team I think. I'm assuming he'd have to take a pay cut to leave.

css228

CowbellGuy
Well, Schafer, Mark Dennehy, and Paul Pearl are apparently the three contenders who interviewed for the head coach position at UMass, so you can't fire him if he leaves.

[www.collegehockeynews.com]

Works for me. Let's hope UMass doesn't realize the horrible mistake they'd be making.

Really?

Dafatone

css228

CowbellGuy
Well, Schafer, Mark Dennehy, and Paul Pearl are apparently the three contenders who interviewed for the head coach position at UMass, so you can't fire him if he leaves.

[www.collegehockeynews.com]

Works for me. Let's hope UMass doesn't realize the horrible mistake they'd be making.

Really?

Yup I've been utterly clear that I think the system he plays and talent he recruits are not a fit in this era, and if we're going to be a mediocre team, I'd at least rather be an aggressive and mediocre team. I want a system that looks like the one Dave Hakstol used to run at UND with a 2 and sometimes 3 man forecheck, aggressive pinching from the D to keep cycles alive, and aggressive neutral zone play to force opponents to dump and chase. The obvious downside to this system being that if the opponent does get a clean breakout, and the players aren't in lock step where they're supposed to be they can be beaten on the rush. I'm convinced that when executed properly this style of system is the best way for a squad that isn't going to get Eichels to exploit undervalued skills (possession, if you don't believe me see everyone's reaction every time I bring this up, and then note that all of the teams in the Frozen Four are dominant possession teams by any analyitic measure kept in college) and compete in the modern era of College Hockey.

css228

Dafatone

css228
Works for me. Let's hope UMass doesn't realize the horrible mistake they'd be making.

Really?

Yup I've been utterly clear that I think the system he plays and talent he recruits are not a fit in this era, and if we're going to be a mediocre team,

"Horrible mistake" is quite a bit of an exaggeration. But one should not be surprised when a poster who has been extremely critical about the coach continues to be so.

css228

CowbellGuy
Well, Schafer, Mark Dennehy, and Paul Pearl are apparently the three contenders who interviewed for the head coach position at UMass, so you can't fire him if he leaves.

[www.collegehockeynews.com]

Works for me. Let's hope UMass doesn't realize the horrible mistake they'd be making.

Schafer's career win % as a coach is 0.612, UMass has yet to turn in a single D1 season higher than that. They have only once surpassed the 0.574 win % that "mediocre" Cornell posted *this* season. They have had three winning seasons in 22 years, all under Toot Cahoon.

Clearly, it would be a disastrous move for that shining star of a program.

RichH

css228

CowbellGuy
Well, Schafer, Mark Dennehy, and Paul Pearl are apparently the three contenders who interviewed for the head coach position at UMass, so you can't fire him if he leaves.

[www.collegehockeynews.com]

Works for me. Let's hope UMass doesn't realize the horrible mistake they'd be making.

Schafer's career win % as a coach is 0.612, UMass has yet to turn in a single D1 season higher than that. They have only once surpassed the 0.574 win % that "mediocre" Cornell posted *this* season. They have had three winning seasons in 22 years, all under Toot Cahoon.

Clearly, it would be a disastrous move for that shining star of a program.

And that's all with some kid named Quick.

RichH
Schafer's career win % as a coach is 0.612, UMass has yet to turn in a single D1 season higher than that. They have only once surpassed the 0.574 win % that "mediocre" Cornell posted *this* season. They have had three winning seasons in 22 years, all under Toot Cahoon.

Clearly, it would be a disastrous move for that shining star of a program.

Taking a quick look, it's pretty clear ol' Toots made something of a mistake leaving Princeton. No question he could've continued spinning out pretty successful (for Princeton) seasons on a regular basis down there.

The grass certainly isn't always greener.

css228

Dafatone

css228

CowbellGuy
Well, Schafer, Mark Dennehy, and Paul Pearl are apparently the three contenders who interviewed for the head coach position at UMass, so you can't fire him if he leaves.

[www.collegehockeynews.com]

Works for me. Let's hope UMass doesn't realize the horrible mistake they'd be making.

Really?

Yup I've been utterly clear that I think the system he plays and talent he recruits are not a fit in this era, and if we're going to be a mediocre team, I'd at least rather be an aggressive and mediocre team. I want a system that looks like the one Dave Hakstol used to run at UND with a 2 and sometimes 3 man forecheck, aggressive pinching from the D to keep cycles alive, and aggressive neutral zone play to force opponents to dump and chase. The obvious downside to this system being that if the opponent does get a clean breakout, and the players aren't in lock step where they're supposed to be they can be beaten on the rush. I'm convinced that when executed properly this style of system is the best way for a squad that isn't going to get Eichels to exploit undervalued skills (possession, if you don't believe me see everyone's reaction every time I bring this up, and then note that all of the teams in the Frozen Four are dominant possession teams by any analyitic measure kept in college) and compete in the modern era of College Hockey.

Can you give examples of other schools who run this kind of system? It sounds somewhat like Union's high pressure team that won the title, and which I really admired.

Having watched the Sioux play it to perfection I agree it would be fun top watch if we could pull it off.

Trotsky

css228

Dafatone

css228

CowbellGuy
Well, Schafer, Mark Dennehy, and Paul Pearl are apparently the three contenders who interviewed for the head coach position at UMass, so you can't fire him if he leaves.

[www.collegehockeynews.com]

Works for me. Let's hope UMass doesn't realize the horrible mistake they'd be making.

Really?

Yup I've been utterly clear that I think the system he plays and talent he recruits are not a fit in this era, and if we're going to be a mediocre team, I'd at least rather be an aggressive and mediocre team. I want a system that looks like the one Dave Hakstol used to run at UND with a 2 and sometimes 3 man forecheck, aggressive pinching from the D to keep cycles alive, and aggressive neutral zone play to force opponents to dump and chase. The obvious downside to this system being that if the opponent does get a clean breakout, and the players aren't in lock step where they're supposed to be they can be beaten on the rush. I'm convinced that when executed properly this style of system is the best way for a squad that isn't going to get Eichels to exploit undervalued skills (possession, if you don't believe me see everyone's reaction every time I bring this up, and then note that all of the teams in the Frozen Four are dominant possession teams by any analyitic measure kept in college) and compete in the modern era of College Hockey.

Can you give examples of other schools who run this kind of system? It sounds somewhat like Union's high pressure team that won the title, and which I really admired.

Having watched the Sioux play it to perfection I agree it would be fun top watch if we could pull it off.

Yale plays a similar style if not quite as aggressive, or at least did while I was still in school.

css228
Yale plays a similar style if not quite as aggressive, or at least did while I was still in school.

No longer. Yale plays a solid D game that starts from Lyons and radiates out through stay at home D-men. They are playing Schafer hockey now.

Scersk '97

Taking a quick look, it's pretty clear ol' Toots made something of a mistake leaving Princeton. No question he could've continued spinning out pretty successful (for Princeton) seasons on a regular basis down there.

Well, that's kind of the standard jump to make, right? Take a small, constrained, and/or unheralded program, to some level of success and spin that performance to a bigger contract at a larger institution with more resources and a desire to improve. Recent examples are Don Lucia, Guy Gadowski, Jeff Jackson, Nate Leaman, and closer to home, Steve Donahue. One could even argue that Jerry York made that jump twice.

RichH
Well, that's kind of the standard jump to make, right? Take a small, constrained, and/or unheralded program, to some level of success and spin that performance to a bigger contract at a larger institution with more resources and a desire to improve. Recent examples are Don Lucia, Guy Gadowski, Jeff Jackson, Nate Leaman, and closer to home, Steve Donahue. One could even argue that Jerry York made that jump twice.

Or...not a whole lot of success. UMass job accepted by SLU's Greg Carvel. Pretty stunning for SLU, as Carvel is a Canton native, St. Lawrence graduate, and the torch-bearer of Joe Marsh's legacy. According to CHN, he has ties to UMass as he went to grad school there, and his wife is from Amherst. His record in four years at SLU: 72-63-15.

UMass is reportedly hiring an ECAC head coach, but not ours.

[www.collegehockeynews.com]

RichH
Well, that's kind of the standard jump to make, right? Take a small, constrained, and/or unheralded program, to some level of success and spin that performance to a bigger contract at a larger institution with more resources and a desire to improve. Recent examples are Don Lucia, Guy Gadowski, Jeff Jackson, Nate Leaman, and closer to home, Steve Donahue. One could even argue that Jerry York made that jump twice.

"Bigger institution with more resources and a desire to improve"——there's the rub. If we figure that Cahoon was a pretty good coach and recruiter, and there seems to be no reason to think otherwise, why was he unable to achieve a "second flowering" (finishing in the top of the league for a couple of years after a down period) at UMass like he had at Princeton? Using history as a guide, going to UMass seems a risky proposition. In Schafer's case it would've been going from "large, successful institution with a great tradition and pretty good resources but an awful administrator or two" to "larger institution with potentially more resources but no tradition and a wavering commitment to improvement." That isn't what any of the guys in your list, save Gadowsky, did; Gadowsky's move was a pretty sure bet.

For what it's worth, I see no reason that the Princeton job would be a bad one long term. Once removed, I'll say that the university is a good place to work, with great benefits, and no lack of resources. Considering the talent available in New Jersey and the Philadelphia area and the growing amount of talent available to the south of there and the lack of a natural competitor in the area (i.e., Brown has Providence; Dartmouth has UNH and Vermont), I would think the right coach could make Princeton a perennial contender if not a perennial powerhouse.

If Carvel's wife, as reported, has ties to the area, that's what this move is all about. Isn't that why Tambroni left, after all?

Not that I want any of that to happen, of course…

Scersk '97
If Carvel's wife, as reported, has ties to the area, that's what this move is all about.

"Honey, we've spent four years in this frozen wilderness. Can we please go back to civilization?"

Trotsky

css228
Yale plays a similar style if not quite as aggressive, or at least did while I was still in school.

No longer. Yale plays a solid D game that starts from Lyons and radiates out through stay at home D-men. They are playing Schafer hockey now.

Boooooooooooo

css228

Trotsky

css228
Yale plays a similar style if not quite as aggressive, or at least did while I was still in school.

No longer. Yale plays a solid D game that starts from Lyons and radiates out through stay at home D-men. They are playing Schafer hockey now.

Boooooooooooo

Seems to me Allain fits the style to his personnel. I think it's pretty admirable that he won it all with firewagon hockey and has now gotten back to the NC$$ using Schafer hockey.

css228

Trotsky

css228
Yale plays a similar style if not quite as aggressive, or at least did while I was still in school.

No longer. Yale plays a solid D game that starts from Lyons and radiates out through stay at home D-men. They are playing Schafer hockey now.

Boooooooooooo

I'm curisou what you would have thought watching Schafer's teams a dozen years ago when we played a very defense oriented schem and were very successful. Nothing wrong with wanting to watch a particular style that you find appealing.

Trotsky

css228

Trotsky

css228
Yale plays a similar style if not quite as aggressive, or at least did while I was still in school.

No longer. Yale plays a solid D game that starts from Lyons and radiates out through stay at home D-men. They are playing Schafer hockey now.

Boooooooooooo

Seems to me Allain fits the style to his personnel. I think it's pretty admirable that he won it all with firewagon hockey and has now gotten back to the NC$$ using Schafer hockey.

Agreed. Schafer clearly prefers to fit players into his system, which makes him less adaptable.

KeithK

css228

Trotsky

css228
Yale plays a similar style if not quite as aggressive, or at least did while I was still in school.

No longer. Yale plays a solid D game that starts from Lyons and radiates out through stay at home D-men. They are playing Schafer hockey now.

Boooooooooooo

I'm curisou what you would have thought watching Schafer's teams a dozen years ago when we played a very defense oriented schem and were very successful. Nothing wrong with wanting to watch a particular style that you find appealing.

I mean that was how hockey was played back then. I watched the Flyers despite them being coached by Ken Hitchcock. Was never a big fan but he got results (ish). If clutch and grab is what wins games, then clutch and grab, but hockey is a lot better for having left that era behind. The moment that team took a turn for the worse (mostly Bobby clarke's fault) I was glad to see Hitch let go and the job given to John Stevens. I guess I generally dislike conservative styles because they constrain players to the point where they almost lose the joy of playing, and the habituate players to not take risks. If taking a calculated pinch to sustain a cycle and create a chances is good process, then it shouldn't be punished even if the player falls trying to make a play, turns the puck over, and the opponents score on a break. That's a major philosophical disagreement I have with conservative coaches like Schafer and Michel Therrien. Good coaches and leaders put their players in positions where they're empowered to succeed, not where they're being asked to not fail. The thing about that Subban play is that Subban is doing what makes P.K. Subban a Norris Trophy winning defenseman. Did he screw up sure, but Therrien hurt his chances of a comeback far more by stapling his best player to bench for the remainder of that game.

As for the other comments on adapting the style to fit your players, I agree its a good thing to be able to do that, but you should also have the ability to recruit guys that fit your style. For example I would never try to run the system I suggested with the kinds of big, but not particularly mobile dmen that Schafer has tended to recruit. In an aggressive system like that skating and positioning are by far the two most important aspects of the game. Although I would not call what Hakstol's teams at UND or the his current team in Philly perform firewagon hockey. Its kinda like a full court press in basketball, in that it only works if you pressure as a complete unit and have a ton of structure to your game (which means admittedly Yale was not the best comparison). As a side note, its not like all of Haktsol's teams had a TJ Oshie or a Johnathan Toews. Some years they did dial back aspects of the pressure to compensate for relatively lesser talent, but the basic concepts of the system remained the same. And they had a lot of success even in years where they didn't have that star 1st round draft pick.

I should add, that sometimes you do need to use a 1-2-2 forecheck to mix things up. If you give opponents the same look all night at the NCAA level, they are going to be good enough to pick you apart.

Trotsky

css228
Yale plays a similar style if not quite as aggressive, or at least did while I was still in school.

No longer. Yale plays a solid D game that starts started from Lyons and radiates out through stay at home D-men. They are playing Schafer hockey now.

FYP

Thinking of him doing this with his signing bonus.

So, I know exactly how I want Cornell to play hockey, having now watched the Royals take the Mets apart last night, again, just like they did in the WS.

That constant pressure and intensity and keeping your head in every second of the game and scrapping for every tiny advantage and not letting up for an instant; good god, it just shatters lesser teams mentally. It's exhausting just watching it, let alone having to deal with it on the ice.

The only hockey team I've ever seen do that was the 85 RPI national champions. Take that, season with some decent talent (which we have) and backstop it with a goalie who can save you for the handful of D breakdowns that you will give up (which we have... at least I think), and it will produce wins. And a helluva lot of fun. And maybe a heart attack on the bench.

Trotsky
So, I know exactly how I want Cornell to play hockey, having now watched the Royals take the Mets apart last night, again, just like they did in the WS.

That constant pressure and intensity and keeping your head in every second of the game and scrapping for every tiny advantage and not letting up for an instant; good god, it just shatters lesser teams mentally. It's exhausting just watching it, let alone having to deal with it on the ice.

The only hockey team I've ever seen do that was the 85 RPI national champions. Take that, season with some decent talent (which we have) and backstop it with a goalie who can save you for the handful of D breakdowns that you will give up (which we have... at least I think), and it will produce wins. And a helluva lot of fun. And maybe a heart attack on the bench.

Every team, Cornell especially, is already trying to do this.

Trotsky
So, I know exactly how I want Cornell to play hockey, having now watched the Royals take the Mets apart last night, again, just like they did in the WS.

That constant pressure and intensity and keeping your head in every second of the game and scrapping for every tiny advantage and not letting up for an instant; good god, it just shatters lesser teams mentally. It's exhausting just watching it, let alone having to deal with it on the ice.

The only hockey team I've ever seen do that was the 85 RPI national champions. Take that, season with some decent talent (which we have) and backstop it with a goalie who can save you for the handful of D breakdowns that you will give up (which we have... at least I think), and it will produce wins. And a helluva lot of fun. And maybe a heart attack on the bench.

The Mets may have been okay (in both the WS and last night) if Cespedes could catch a freakin' ball. Or if Duda (who normally throws just fine, despite all this talk about his bad defense, which is really just his glove) made a better throw. Or if they could figure out how to beat Edinson Volquez (It's not hard! Just don't swing! NOTHING he throws is in the strike zone ever! Seriously.)

But I see your point. This year's hockey team at least felt like it had the potential to maybe sometimes score, such as at the end of regulation in that Brown game where a loss would have been a disaster (and a tie was pretty bad, too).

BearLover

Trotsky
So, I know exactly how I want Cornell to play hockey, having now watched the Royals take the Mets apart last night, again, just like they did in the WS.

That constant pressure and intensity and keeping your head in every second of the game and scrapping for every tiny advantage and not letting up for an instant; good god, it just shatters lesser teams mentally. It's exhausting just watching it, let alone having to deal with it on the ice.

The only hockey team I've ever seen do that was the 85 RPI national champions. Take that, season with some decent talent (which we have) and backstop it with a goalie who can save you for the handful of D breakdowns that you will give up (which we have... at least I think), and it will produce wins. And a helluva lot of fun. And maybe a heart attack on the bench.

Every team, Cornell especially, is already trying to do this.

I disagree with that premise, although it may stem from a different interpretation. What he's implying to me is the type of high pressure system attack points at blue line system that he's been advocated, as opposed to a more Torts/Schafer/90s-2000s Devils clog the neutral zone, block shots, collapse around the goalie. Basically he's talking about the hockey equivalent of running the old Arkansas 40 minutes of hell full court press defense.

You might be right--I interpreted the post more literally to mean just relentless/scrappy effort for the full 60 minutes--something Schafer preaches in every press conference.

For the record, the Royals are poorly managed and make tons of in-game mistakes. They are overly aggressive in their swinging and baserunning and although it happened to not cost them against the Mets in the WS and last night, they are by no means the beacon of managerial tactics.

BearLover
You might be right--I interpreted the post more literally to mean just relentless/scrappy effort for the full 60 minutes--something Schafer preaches in every press conference.

For the record, the Royals are poorly managed and make tons of in-game mistakes. They are overly aggressive in their swinging and baserunning and although it happened to not cost them against the Mets in the WS and last night, they are by no means the beacon of managerial tactics.

Yeah but Hockey is also a completely different game than baseball. In baseball the goal is to conserve outs, since you only get 27 of them. In hockey, you're arguably less penalized for any single mistake unless it ends up in the back of your net.

BearLover
For the record, the Royals are poorly managed and make tons of in-game mistakes. They are overly aggressive in their swinging and baserunning and although it happened to not cost them against the Mets in the WS and last night, they are by no means the beacon of managerial tactics.

{driffffffft}

The Royals are zigging when the rest of the league is zagging but it's not like there isn't a plan. They build their team on almost a little league model: they value putting the ball in play above pure OBP skills and let their aggressive baserunning act as defensive pressure. They swing a lot and while you'd think that would mean a lot of strikeouts, it turns out that with a high-contact team it means a ton of foul balls and high pitch counts and the benefits of chasing the starter.

The more you watch them the more it makes sense, though it's a strategy that requires very specific roster construction. The computer models still don't appreciate the Royals because they make no sense in light of how we usually think about the game now. The formula is going to be hard to replicate - and maybe so hard that it isn't worth trying - but they're going to be very good again this year.

Anyway, I think about this article (in part about how eventually statistics redeemed old scouting opinions regarding catcher defense that the statheads had dismissed as nonsense but mostly about humility) all the time when I think about the Royals' emphasis on contact, speed and defense (and a shut-down bullpen). The outsider statheads will eventually catch up to what the Royals are doing and reduce it to numbers. The insiders already have the calculations under lock and key.

ugarte

BearLover
For the record, the Royals are poorly managed and make tons of in-game mistakes. They are overly aggressive in their swinging and baserunning and although it happened to not cost them against the Mets in the WS and last night, they are by no means the beacon of managerial tactics.

{driffffffft}

The Royals are zigging when the rest of the league is zagging but it's not like there isn't a plan. They build their team on almost a little league model: they value putting the ball in play above pure OBP skills and let their aggressive baserunning act as defensive pressure. They swing a lot and while you'd think that would mean a lot of strikeouts, it turns out that with a high-contact team it means a ton of foul balls and high pitch counts and the benefits of chasing the starter.

The more you watch them the more it makes sense, though it's a strategy that requires very specific roster construction. The computer models still don't appreciate the Royals because they make no sense in light of how we usually think about the game now. The formula is going to be hard to replicate - and maybe so hard that it isn't worth trying - but they're going to be very good again this year.

Anyway, I think about this article (in part about how eventually statistics redeemed old scouting opinions regarding catcher defense that the statheads had dismissed as nonsense but mostly about humility) all the time when I think about the Royals' emphasis on contact, speed and defense (and a shut-down bullpen). The outsider statheads will eventually catch up to what the Royals are doing and reduce it to numbers. The insiders already have the calculations under lock and key.

Their defense is amazing, their bullpen is absurdly ridiculous, and their lineup has no holes and a few very underrated bats.

ugarte
Anyway, I think about this article (in part about how eventually statistics redeemed old scouting opinions regarding catcher defense that the statheads had dismissed as nonsense but mostly about humility) all the time when I think about the Royals' emphasis on contact, speed and defense (and a shut-down bullpen).

Thanks for that link. Great read.