Schafer should resign ...

As discussed elsewhere in this forum, Schafer's post game comments after the surprising Harvard loss were inappropriate and reflect poorly on the University and the hockey program. Accordingly, I think the time has come for a coaching change. Schafer is a good coach, but not a great coach. He's delivered a lot of bridesmaids, but never the bride. With all the talent he's had over the years, he's the only constant. It's time to move on.

Many on this board are quick to come to Schafer’s defense. I admire your loyalty, but I think your trust in Coach Schafer is misguided. Some defend Schafer because the Ivy League restrictions make success prohibitive. This is nothing more than a red herring. He's coached tremendous talent (8 former Cornellians presently on NHL rosters), and had no problem recruiting, matriculating and (in some instances) graduating these young men. The talent is there, but Schafer doesn’t know how to effectively coach this talent.

Others on this board will defend Schafer's “successes.” I won't deny he's had his moments and a decent overall record, but I wouldn't call his coaching career a success. Success only comes in winning the NCAA championship – a feat Schafer has failed to accomplish. Do you think Mike Krzyzewski is content winning an ACC tournament, or making a Final Four appearance? This year, the team is particularly mediocre. They are a poorly coached, undisciplined team that can't even beat a woeful Harvard squad in their own barn. Schafer's response to this loss was to blame the fans.

Schafer ought to be ashamed of himself, and out of respect to the hockey program and the Cornell community, he should tender his resignation. Short of resignation, I call on the University’s Administration to replace him with a coach whose priority is to ensure Cornell hockey is a perennial favorite for an NCAA title. As students, alumni, townies, boosters and supporters of the program, we do a disservice by blindly placing our trust in Mike Schafer – a coach who is content in falling short of a national title, year in and year out. I welcome a changing of the guard, and know others agree.

.

Facetimer
As discussed elsewhere in this forum, Schafer's post game comments after the surprising Harvard loss were inappropriate and reflect poorly on the University and the hockey program. Accordingly, I think the time has come for a coaching change. Schafer is a good coach, but not a great coach. He's delivered a lot of bridesmaids, but never the bride. With all the talent he's had over the years, he's the only constant. It's time to move on.

Many on this board are quick to come to Schafer’s defense. I admire your loyalty, but I think your trust in Coach Schafer is misguided. Some defend Schafer because the Ivy League restrictions make success prohibitive. This is nothing more than a red herring. He's coached tremendous talent (8 former Cornellians presently on NHL rosters), and had no problem recruiting, matriculating and (in some instances) graduating these young men. The talent is there, but Schafer doesn’t know how to effectively coach this talent.

Others on this board will defend Schafer's “successes.” I won't deny he's had his moments and a decent overall record, but I wouldn't call his coaching career a success. Success only comes in winning the NCAA championship – a feat Schafer has failed to accomplish. Do you think Mike Krzyzewski is content winning an ACC tournament, or making a Final Four appearance? This year, the team is particularly mediocre. They are a poorly coached, undisciplined team that can't even beat a woeful Harvard squad in their own barn. Schafer's response to this loss was to blame the fans.

Schafer ought to be ashamed of himself, and out of respect to the hockey program and the Cornell community, he should tender his resignation. Short of resignation, I call on the University’s Administration to replace him with a coach whose priority is to ensure Cornell hockey is a perennial favorite for an NCAA title. As students, alumni, townies, boosters and supporters of the program, we do a disservice by blindly placing our trust in Mike Schafer – a coach who is content in falling short of a national title, year in and year out. I welcome a changing of the guard, and know others agree.

OK, let's complete this thought experiment. Let's say Schafer resigns the day after the end of the season. Then what? What would be a reasonable scenario for what's next? I don't mean some pipe dream like "Ken Dryden will come back and coach for free". If Schafer isn't good enough, then what scenario are we missing here that would have a reasonable chance of being better? Is there someone out there where you can make a reasonable case that they'll be better at recruiting? At developing the players in practice? At being a game tactician? Who?

There are guys out there that would take the Cornell job in a heartbeat. How about a guy like Mark Dennehey of Merrimack College. Great recruiting, experience in the Ivy League, his team is very competitive in a tough conference. Imagine what he could do at a school people want to go to.

So now we have 2 anti-Schafer threads. I feel sorry for all of you, you spend your life finding ways to put others down. Yet none of you seem to have any concrete suggestions other than Schafer is not doing enough. Well as I have posted on the other anti thread, show me someone who has done better. Who and when was the last ECAC coach to win the NCAAs. Who was the last coach to actually get an ECAC team the possibility of winning the NCAA crown. So to all of you, find me something better, then I might start to listen to you. Otherwise you just seem like a bunch who like to sound important by posting complaints. Maybe you shouldn't all be lumped together, but I find it hard not to when no positive suggestions come out. Good night.

Wait. Where are they going? Are they hopping back in his mouth? EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!!!!

So Schafer should resign so that we can hire a guy with a career coaching record of 70-141-26? Who's enjoying his first season with a winning record as a coach - ever? Schafer, in a building year, has a team currently tied for 3rd in the league and gets a bad quote in the Sun (I don't happen to believe that myself, but let's go with it), and for that should get taken out back and shot. But another guy who has lost twice as many games as he has won gets the benefit of the doubt?

You say "there are guys out there" and this is the best example you can come up with? I'm sorry, I'm not seeing it. If you want to get taken seriously, make a serious case and convince me with a realistic scenario, rather than just hopes and dreams of a mythical better future beyond the horizon. What you've said so far is beyond absurd. Make a case - convince me.

Your putting a little too much emphasis on his record, wouldn't you say? His abysmal record makes his accomplishments at Merrimack College that much more impressive. Your asked for a name of someone who could do a better job recruiting, developing talent, etc. Not who has the best record among active coaches. You're gonna have a bad record if you coach bad teams in a good conference.

It seems to me like you are content settling with Schafer because you're afraid of change. It's the same mentality as Jim Hyla, and it's a crap argument. There is always someone who can do better, and if Schafer doesn't have the class to step aside and allow the program to return to prominence, the Athletics department owes it to us to find a coach that will.

Facetimer
Your putting a little too much emphasis on his record, wouldn't you say? His abysmal record makes his accomplishments at Merrimack College that much more impressive. Your asked for a name of someone who could do a better job recruiting, developing talent, etc. Not who has the best record among active coaches. You're gonna have a bad record if you coach bad teams in a good conference.

It seems to me like you are content settling with Schafer because you're afraid of change. It's the same mentality as Jim Hyla. And it's a crap argument. There is always someone who can do better, and the Athletics department owes it to us to at least entertain the option of a coaching change.

I'm not at all afraid of change. All I ask is for some rationale that makes sense, that suggests that there's a reasonable expectation that change will yield a future that's better than the present. As Giuliani said, hope is not a strategy.

As for whether or not I'm putting too much emphasis on record - I don't know what to say to that. Call me a simpleton, but I want Cornell to win. Whether or not a coach has been able to win in the past seems to me to be the best measure of their ability to win in the future. Even if you give this guy a break for being at a lower profile school (albeit one with scholarships and MUCH lower admissions standards) and in a tougher conference, you've got to almost double his winning percentage to match Schafer's in the same time.

You're grasping at straws here.

brealy_myers
But another guy who has lost twice as many games as he has won gets the benefit of the doubt?

Do they have athletic scholarships there as well? He'll probably do even better once you take those away and impose likely higher academic standards. Good idea.

I refer you to my original post about playing the scholarship/academic standards card. I'm obviously not tied to Dennehey - you asked for a name, and he was the first one that came to mind. Like I said, however, somewhere in the Athletic department, somebody should be having a conversation just like this. I doubt they are satisfied with Schafer's performance this year, nor should they be. Heck, at this rate, Scott Mayer '03 would be a better coach than Schafer.

Facetimer
I refer you to my original post about playing the scholarship/academic standards card. I'm obviously not tied to Dennehey - you asked for a name, and he was the first one that came to mind. Like I said, however, somewhere in the Athletic department, somebody should be having a conversation just like this. I doubt they are satisfied with Schafer's performance this year, nor should they be. Heck, at this rate, Scott Mayer '03 would be a better coach than Schafer.

At this point, you've provided zero evidence that there are better options out there. I honestly did not want to be one of the crowd simply dismissing you out of hand; I agree that it's always appropriate to look at the evidence and ask the question "could we be doing better - is there a better way to go?" Unfortunately, you aren't answering that question. All you're saying is "I don't like Schafer", which is only half an answer. I don't know what Schafer did to pee in your oatmeal, but unless you can make a cogent argument that there is a reasonable potential for a better future beyond just "waaahhh Schafer said not nice things in the Sun and there are penalties and we lost to Harvard and we don't win every single game ever boo hoo hoo" it's clear that the status quo remains the superior alternative.

In my opinion, Schafer is too edgy to be head coach for Cornell. You don't want a guy who punches the wall so hard after a tie with BU that he seriously injures himself. After that incident, I lost a lot of confidence in him. Moreover, his anti-fish comments now just don't hold any water. He's been very fish tolerant the whole time he has been at Cornell.

Facetimer
I call on the University’s Administration to replace him with a coach whose priority is to ensure Cornell hockey is a perennial favorite for an NCAA title.

You lose any chance at a rational discussion when you hyperbolize like this. No team is, or has ever been, a perennial favorite. Perennial contender, perhaps, but even then the BCs, BUs, UNDs, and UMinns of the world have their down years.

Facetimer
He's coached tremendous talent (8 former Cornellians presently on NHL rosters), and had no problem recruiting, matriculating and (in some instances) graduating these young men. The talent is there, but Schafer doesn’t know how to effectively coach this talent.

In the seasons ending in 2001-2010 (Hockeydb.com doesn't put up stats for the season in progress), Cornell had 12 guys who played a total of 1220 games in the NHL. Of course, nearly half of those games were played by Nieuwendyk and Chartrand, both of whom retired in 2004. The list also includes illustrious NHL heroes like Iggulden (12 games), LeNeveu (21 games), Pelletier (6 games), and Underhill (1 game). In 2010, we had 5 players who played, 3 of whom were glad just to get a cup of coffee: Bitz (7 games), Sawada (5 games), and Vesce (9 games).

Over that same span, UND has had 32 guys play 6122 NHL games - not even close. In 2010, they had 14 players in the NHL, and the "worst" one of them played 23 games - more than our worst 3 combined. To say that we have had "tremendous" talent speaks volumes of your ignorance of the hockey landscape outside of Ithaca, NY. Our talent has been tremendous when compared with previous decades of Cornell teams, but is nowhere near the talent levels of true NCAA contenders. To think otherwise is ignorant or disingenuous.

Oh - and you know what? Cornell has exactly as many NCAA championships since 2000 as UND. If that is your only benchmark for success or failure, then my advice to you is to give up your interest in hockey altogether, because you're just setting yourself up for inevitable disappointment.

I am not sure rational discussion is possible on items like this. Any coach can have a bad year or a rebuilding year. To measure coaching performance you have to take a longer view. Some are unhappy about the current coach, some have doubts, some are confident. How about we try to define, in measurable terms what good long term performance is and if the coach was your employee what would you define as good performance (with clear metrics) would be for next year. Here is my list:

Good Long Term Performance
Win the ECAC Regular Season 1 year out of 3
Win the ECAC Tournament 1 year out of 3
Make the Frozen Four 1 year out of 4 or 5

2011-12 Goals
1 or 2 in the ECAC Regular Season
1 or 2 in the ECAC Tournament
Make it through the first round of the NCAA's
20% reduction in 2 and 5 PIM's
3.0 Goals/Game

This is a mix of results and means to results.

For those of you new to the board, Facetimer is a well known troll.

Don't encourage him. Let this discussion just die.

Good Long Term Performance
Win the ECAC Regular Season 1 year out of 3
Win the ECAC Tournament 1 year out of 3
Make the Frozen Four 1 year out of 4 or 5

There is no stronger argument for keeping Schafer than that he has improved Cornell to the level that these are metrics for "Good Long Term Performance."

Jeff Hopkins '82
For those of you new to the board, Facetimer is a well known troll.

Don't encourage him. Let this discussion just die.

Yeah, sorry about that. I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt and an opportunity to back up his whine with a real argument. Obviously he can't - he was just trumpeting his grudge, wherever it comes from. Sorry for feeding the trolls.

Trotsky

Good Long Term Performance
Win the ECAC Regular Season 1 year out of 3
Win the ECAC Tournament 1 year out of 3
Make the Frozen Four 1 year out of 4 or 5

There is no stronger argument for keeping Schafer than that he has improved Cornell to the level that these are metrics for "Good Long Term Performance."

C- Interesting argument but did not really answer the question. Is your position that because we are discussing what good long term performance is that we have met the long term performance goals? Come on, you can do better than that. Also you did not answer the second part. What is good performance in 11-12?

I suggest a rewrite.

Towerroad

Trotsky

Good Long Term Performance
Win the ECAC Regular Season 1 year out of 3
Win the ECAC Tournament 1 year out of 3
Make the Frozen Four 1 year out of 4 or 5

There is no stronger argument for keeping Schafer than that he has improved Cornell to the level that these are metrics for "Good Long Term Performance."

C- Interesting argument but did not really answer the question. Is your position that because we are discussing what good long term performance is that we have met the long term performance goals? Come on, you can do better than that. Also you did not answer the second part. What is good performance in 11-12?

I suggest a rewrite.

I suggest a re-read.

There are only about 9-10 teams in the NCAA for whom those would be realistic long-term goals. The fact that anyone might even consider us to be part of that elite group means that Schafer has been doing a darn good job. Remember Schafer's goals from fall of 1996? IIRC, they were: top 4 finish in the ECAC, advancing to Lake Placid, and beating Harvard. Would anyone be satisfied with these goals today? I don't think so - the program has grown, and we have Mike Schafer to thank for that.

Robb

Towerroad

Trotsky

Good Long Term Performance
Win the ECAC Regular Season 1 year out of 3
Win the ECAC Tournament 1 year out of 3
Make the Frozen Four 1 year out of 4 or 5

There is no stronger argument for keeping Schafer than that he has improved Cornell to the level that these are metrics for "Good Long Term Performance."

C- Interesting argument but did not really answer the question. Is your position that because we are discussing what good long term performance is that we have met the long term performance goals? Come on, you can do better than that. Also you did not answer the second part. What is good performance in 11-12?

I suggest a rewrite.

I suggest a re-read.

There are only about 9-10 teams in the NCAA for whom those would be realistic long-term goals. The fact that anyone might even consider us to be part of that elite group means that Schafer has been doing a darn good job. Remember Schafer's goals from fall of 1996? IIRC, they were: top 4 finish in the ECAC, advancing to Lake Placid, and beating Harvard. Would anyone be satisfied with these goals today? I don't think so - the program has grown, and we have Mike Schafer to thank for that.

Why is everyone on this board afraid of putting down on paper what good performance is. I said what I thought it was and I set the bar fairly high because I think the program has further to go. Feel free to disagree but for goodness sake take the time to turn your concept of good long term and next year performance into something concrete.

Why do you assume that we're "afraid" to put down our definition of good performance? I just don't happen to think that my opinion is very interesting.

Since you seem to be interested after all:

11-12:
Top 2 finish
Play in ECAC championship game
NCAA bid

Long Term:
Play in ECAC Championship game every other year
NCAA bid 3 out of 5 years
NCAA first-round win 2 out of those 3 trips
One frozen four per 10 years

Robb

Towerroad

Trotsky

Good Long Term Performance
Win the ECAC Regular Season 1 year out of 3
Win the ECAC Tournament 1 year out of 3
Make the Frozen Four 1 year out of 4 or 5

There is no stronger argument for keeping Schafer than that he has improved Cornell to the level that these are metrics for "Good Long Term Performance."

C- Interesting argument but did not really answer the question. Is your position that because we are discussing what good long term performance is that we have met the long term performance goals? Come on, you can do better than that. Also you did not answer the second part. What is good performance in 11-12?

I suggest a rewrite.

I suggest a re-read.

There are only about 9-10 teams in the NCAA for whom those would be realistic long-term goals. The fact that anyone might even consider us to be part of that elite group means that Schafer has been doing a darn good job. Remember Schafer's goals from fall of 1996? IIRC, they were: top 4 finish in the ECAC, advancing to Lake Placid, and beating Harvard. Would anyone be satisfied with these goals today? I don't think so - the program has grown, and we have Mike Schafer to thank for that.

I'm pretty sure selling out Lynah was also one of the goals. I recall them being selling out Lynah, beating Harvard, and getting home ice for the quarters (i.e., top 4). He accomplished all three, which set us up for what followed. (I remember thinking at the time that home ice in the quarters meant we were likely to go to Placid, at which point anything could happen.)

Towerroad

Robb

Towerroad

Trotsky

Good Long Term Performance
Win the ECAC Regular Season 1 year out of 3
Win the ECAC Tournament 1 year out of 3
Make the Frozen Four 1 year out of 4 or 5

There is no stronger argument for keeping Schafer than that he has improved Cornell to the level that these are metrics for "Good Long Term Performance."

C- Interesting argument but did not really answer the question. Is your position that because we are discussing what good long term performance is that we have met the long term performance goals? Come on, you can do better than that. Also you did not answer the second part. What is good performance in 11-12?

I suggest a rewrite.

I suggest a re-read.

There are only about 9-10 teams in the NCAA for whom those would be realistic long-term goals. The fact that anyone might even consider us to be part of that elite group means that Schafer has been doing a darn good job. Remember Schafer's goals from fall of 1996? IIRC, they were: top 4 finish in the ECAC, advancing to Lake Placid, and beating Harvard. Would anyone be satisfied with these goals today? I don't think so - the program has grown, and we have Mike Schafer to thank for that.

Why is everyone on this board afraid of putting down on paper what good performance is. I said what I thought it was. Feel free to disagree but for goodness sake take the time to turn your concept of good long term and next year performance into something concrete.

First, FYP. I didn't want Robb to get credit for your post.

Second, 2 days ago on another thread you posted:

Towerroad
Why don't we leave the squabbling for the post season. Anymore would be bad mojo.

I can agree with that. So why are we continuing the argument here. (Yes, I know it's got a different twist, but...) So as long as we are continuing to talk, or write, I can chip in. (Heaven knows no one has ever accused me of not entering into an argument.)

In regards to your goals, I can now understand why you're unhappy. But I'm sorry to say, you will probably always be unhappy with Cornell hockey, because those goals will never be met. At least I can say, not in my lifetime; and although I'm old, I expect to be watching for many more years. Only one current ECAC school has ever attained those goals, and Heavens to Murgatroyd, (I think you can spell that with a y or an i?) it was us. Harvard has come close, but I don't think anyone would say let's change coaches. Harkness did that back in 66-70. Sadly, he died and no one has ever found a replacement.

My goal is to just over time be a better team than any other ECAC school, thus giving me, and you (See how easy it is to be inclusive.) the opportunity to cheer as hard and as long as we possibly can. I think if you look at my prior post on the other anti-Schafer thread, you'll see that of all the current ECAC coaches, Schafer has done the best toward my goal. (Past performance is not predictive of future performance, or whatever the financial companies always say.) I'm happy.

jtwcornell91
I'm pretty sure selling out Lynah was also one of the goals. I recall them being selling out Lynah, beating Harvard, and getting home ice for the quarters (i.e., top 4). He accomplished all three, which set us up for what followed. (I remember thinking at the time that home ice in the quarters meant we were likely to go to Placid, at which point anything could happen.)

Ah, yes - you are correct. Advancing to Placid didn't seem quite right. Thanks for the reminder.

Towerroad

Trotsky

Good Long Term Performance
Win the ECAC Regular Season 1 year out of 3
Win the ECAC Tournament 1 year out of 3
Make the Frozen Four 1 year out of 4 or 5

There is no stronger argument for keeping Schafer than that he has improved Cornell to the level that these are metrics for "Good Long Term Performance."

C- Interesting argument but did not really answer the question. Is your position that because we are discussing what good long term performance is that we have met the long term performance goals? Come on, you can do better than that. Also you did not answer the second part. What is good performance in 11-12?

I suggest a rewrite.

Sure, kid. What you suggest is noted and logged.

Trotsky

Towerroad

Trotsky

Good Long Term Performance
Win the ECAC Regular Season 1 year out of 3
Win the ECAC Tournament 1 year out of 3
Make the Frozen Four 1 year out of 4 or 5

There is no stronger argument for keeping Schafer than that he has improved Cornell to the level that these are metrics for "Good Long Term Performance."

C- Interesting argument but did not really answer the question. Is your position that because we are discussing what good long term performance is that we have met the long term performance goals? Come on, you can do better than that. Also you did not answer the second part. What is good performance in 11-12?

I suggest a rewrite.

Sure, kid. What you suggest is noted and logged.

I wait with baited breath.

Jim Hyla

Towerroad

Robb

Towerroad

Trotsky

Good Long Term Performance
Win the ECAC Regular Season 1 year out of 3
Win the ECAC Tournament 1 year out of 3
Make the Frozen Four 1 year out of 4 or 5

There is no stronger argument for keeping Schafer than that he has improved Cornell to the level that these are metrics for "Good Long Term Performance."

C- Interesting argument but did not really answer the question. Is your position that because we are discussing what good long term performance is that we have met the long term performance goals? Come on, you can do better than that. Also you did not answer the second part. What is good performance in 11-12?

I suggest a rewrite.

I suggest a re-read.

There are only about 9-10 teams in the NCAA for whom those would be realistic long-term goals. The fact that anyone might even consider us to be part of that elite group means that Schafer has been doing a darn good job. Remember Schafer's goals from fall of 1996? IIRC, they were: top 4 finish in the ECAC, advancing to Lake Placid, and beating Harvard. Would anyone be satisfied with these goals today? I don't think so - the program has grown, and we have Mike Schafer to thank for that.

Why is everyone on this board afraid of putting down on paper what good performance is. I said what I thought it was. Feel free to disagree but for goodness sake take the time to turn your concept of good long term and next year performance into something concrete.

First, FYP. I didn't want Robb to get credit for your post.

Second, 2 days ago on another thread you posted:

Towerroad
Why don't we leave the squabbling for the post season. Anymore would be bad mojo.

I can agree with that. So why are we continuing the argument here. (Yes, I know it's got a different twist, but...) So as long as we are continuing to talk, or write, I can chip in. (Heaven knows no one has ever accused me of not entering into an argument.)

In regards to your goals, I can now understand why you're unhappy. But I'm sorry to say, you will probably always be unhappy with Cornell hockey, because those goals will never be met. At least I can say, not in my lifetime; and although I'm old, I expect to be watching for many more years. Only one current ECAC school has ever attained those goals, and Heavens to Murgatroyd, (I think you can spell that with a y or an i?) it was us. Harvard has come close, but I don't think anyone would say let's change coaches. Harkness did that back in 66-70. Sadly, he died and no one has ever found a replacement.

My goal is to just over time be a better team than any other ECAC school, thus giving me, and you (See how easy it is to be inclusive.) the opportunity to cheer as hard and as long as we possibly can. I think if you look at my prior post on the other anti-Schafer thread, you'll see that of all the current ECAC coaches, Schafer has done the best toward my goal. (Past performance is not predictive of future performance, or whatever the financial companies always say.) I'm happy.

I think that talking about performance goals and metrics is a very different discussion than the other. Yes, I did set my sights high. I would like to see the Red regarded as perennial top teams simliar to BC, BU, Denver, ND, Mn, Mi etc. I the metrics I proposed were consistent with that desire.

A more interesting discussion might be how much of our soul would we have to sell to get there and is it worth the price. That might lead me to readjust my performance expectations. Also, I wanted to put a stake in the ground and see what the reaction would be. Consider it a seed value for an iterative solution.

With regards to Jim's comments:

Although Schafer has taken us from mediocre/pathetic to a consistent top-performing team within the ECAC, I think the next logical step is to reach further and become a top-10 NCAA team. Just like Towerroad said:

Towerroad
I would like to see the Red regarded as perennial top teams simliar to BC, BU, Denver, ND, Mn, Mi etc.

I know this would be an entire other discussion on top of the coaching issue, but I do share similar goals and that's the basis of my opinions. If all stays the same, we'll just keep grinding around our current position and that might be fine for some.

However, all other factors cet. par. (taking into consideration the people we're able to recruit and the Ivy League's rules), it's definitely possible for us to reach that top-10 NCAA goal year after year, considering the extraordinary amount of support and funding the team gets from various sources. No one doubts that we have one of the best hockey fan bases around the country, so why not put that into good use to keep improving our team when we haven't reached our full potential?

ajh258
With regards to Jim's comments:

Although Schafer has taken us from mediocre/pathetic to a consistent top-performing team within the ECAC, I think the next logical step is to reach further and become a top-10 NCAA team. Just like Towerroad said:

Towerroad
I would like to see the Red regarded as perennial top teams simliar to BC, BU, Denver, ND, Mn, Mi etc.

I know this would be an entire other discussion on top of the coaching issue, but I do share similar goals and that's the basis of my opinions. If all stays the same, we'll just keep grinding around our current position and that might be fine for some.

However, all other factors cet. par. (taking into consideration the people we're able to recruit and the Ivy League's rules), it's definitely possible for us to reach that top-10 NCAA goal year after year, considering the extraordinary amount of support and funding the team gets from various sources. No one doubts that we have one of the best hockey fan bases around the country, so why not put that into good use to keep improving our team when we haven't reached our full potential?

As far as can see it, fans can help in 2 ways. Well, really 3, if you consider not throwing stuff on the ice being a help. My 2 ways are cheering support and financial support. There are other things, such as names of prospective recruits, but I don't think any of us would do more than an occasion with that. Maybe there are others that I'm not thinking of right now?

Anyway, we all cheer, and many travel to a number of away games to support. I hope that all of you do that to the best of your ability. I also hope that all of you contribute, both to the hockey program and your other Cornell interests. I'd venture to say that the other institutions mentioned probably get a lot more financial support from their Athletic Department than does Cornell. Does anyone out there know the facts?

Finally, while I'm talking about finances, I'd like to suggest to all posters that they click on the PayPal Donate button on the right and give Age a donation. Without his work none of this would be happening. At least I wouldn't be going over to USCHO like I am here. Shucks, maybe that would be a good thing?

Towerroad

Trotsky

Towerroad

Trotsky

Good Long Term Performance
Win the ECAC Regular Season 1 year out of 3
Win the ECAC Tournament 1 year out of 3
Make the Frozen Four 1 year out of 4 or 5

There is no stronger argument for keeping Schafer than that he has improved Cornell to the level that these are metrics for "Good Long Term Performance."

C- Interesting argument but did not really answer the question. Is your position that because we are discussing what good long term performance is that we have met the long term performance goals? Come on, you can do better than that. Also you did not answer the second part. What is good performance in 11-12?

I suggest a rewrite.

Sure, kid. What you suggest is noted and logged.

I wait with baited breath.

What are you using for bait? Bated (contraction of abated), not baited. Unless you're trolling for mackerel.

ajh258
it's definitely possible for us to reach that top-10 NCAA goal year after year

By fiat? In all seriousness, what is it that makes you think Cornell isn't already operating at full potential? How can you measure a "what should be"? other than by a comparison with like programs operating under like circumstances? Michigan, North Dakota and Minnesota aint like programs -- they have huge systemic advantages. Anybody who wants in gets in, and they don't pay a dime.

There's also no reason in principle Cornell couldn't go right back to being a middle of the pack conference team with a handful of ECAC F4 appearances per decade and one NCAA win every generation. Joe Marsh, arguably the best coach in the ECAC and one of the most respected half dozen in the country, has that at SLU. Clarkson and Harvard would love to just get back to that.

Everybody here wants Cornell to win 100% of the time, but your "we should win" seems to be predicated mostly on "we have won," which is a function of Schafer and his coaches. Losing is quite possible, too, and a non-scholarship school with Ivy admissions requirements has systemic hurdles working against it which indicate that losing is the likely overall expected value.

We all want the team to be a perennial champion, but wishing doesn't make it so.

Trotsky
Everybody here wants Cornell to win 100% of the time,

Nope.

Towerroad

Trotsky

Towerroad

Trotsky

Good Long Term Performance
Win the ECAC Regular Season 1 year out of 3
Win the ECAC Tournament 1 year out of 3
Make the Frozen Four 1 year out of 4 or 5

There is no stronger argument for keeping Schafer than that he has improved Cornell to the level that these are metrics for "Good Long Term Performance."

C- Interesting argument but did not really answer the question. Is your position that because we are discussing what good long term performance is that we have met the long term performance goals? Come on, you can do better than that. Also you did not answer the second part. What is good performance in 11-12?

I suggest a rewrite.

Sure, kid. What you suggest is noted and logged.

I wait with baited breath.

Jesus T. Christ, doesn't anybody watch Star Trek TOS re-runs anymore?

ursusminor

Trotsky
Everybody here wants Cornell to win 100% of the time,

Nope.

Yeah, well, the world needs ditch-diggers too...

Trotsky

ajh258
it's definitely possible for us to reach that top-10 NCAA goal year after year

By fiat? In all seriousness, what is it that makes you think Cornell isn't already operating at full potential?

...

We all want the team to be a perennial champion, but wishing doesn't make it so.

For starters, we can start lobbying the Ivy League to make rule changes in regards to recruitment and season schedules, or make strategic changes in the way we handle offense. Isn't the purpose of this discussion to explore what we could do differently to make this team better? At no point was I simply "wishing" us to win more, and the view about how we're already good and shouldn't expect much more is just counterproductive. If you think there's no incentive or possibility to improve, then just sit back and enjoy the status quo.

Facetimer
There is always someone who can do better, and if Schafer doesn't have the class to step aside and allow the program to return to prominence, the Athletics department owes it to us to find a coach that will.

I'm sorry, what? Take a look at where the program is now, versus where it was when Schafer took over in 1995, and tell me that a "return to prominence" isn't exactly what he has brought about? Jesus, we won the conference tournament last fucking season, and because the team is in third place in what everyone expected would be a rebuilding year, Schafer needs to step aside?

BigRedHockeyFan
In my opinion, Schafer is too edgy to be head coach for Cornell. You don't want a guy who punches the wall so hard after a tie with BU that he seriously injures himself. After that incident, I lost a lot of confidence in him. Moreover, his anti-fish comments now just don't hold any water. He's been very fish tolerant the whole time he has been at Cornell.

Forgive me if my sarcasm detector isn't calibrated, is your comment here serious? Nothing Schafer said should reasonably give rise to the belief that he isn't still very fish tolerant; what he's vocally opposed to (and what any of us with a brain should also be opposed to) is throwing things on the ice at the wrong time and getting the team a penalty. Maybe he overstated his case due to a visceral negative reaction to what happened; I know I would have.

Al DeFlorio

Towerroad

Trotsky

Towerroad

Trotsky

Good Long Term Performance
Win the ECAC Regular Season 1 year out of 3
Win the ECAC Tournament 1 year out of 3
Make the Frozen Four 1 year out of 4 or 5

There is no stronger argument for keeping Schafer than that he has improved Cornell to the level that these are metrics for "Good Long Term Performance."

C- Interesting argument but did not really answer the question. Is your position that because we are discussing what good long term performance is that we have met the long term performance goals? Come on, you can do better than that. Also you did not answer the second part. What is good performance in 11-12?

I suggest a rewrite.

Sure, kid. What you suggest is noted and logged.

I wait with baited breath.

What are you using for bait? Bated (contraction of abated), not baited. Unless you're trolling for mackerel.

I was thinking of red wigglers and definitely trolling.

ajh258
If you think there's no incentive or possibility to improve, then just sit back and enjoy the status quo.

I have been enjoying it.

And we're all just sitting back, unless you're a player posting.

Towerroad

Al DeFlorio

Towerroad

Trotsky

Towerroad

Trotsky

Good Long Term Performance
Win the ECAC Regular Season 1 year out of 3
Win the ECAC Tournament 1 year out of 3
Make the Frozen Four 1 year out of 4 or 5

There is no stronger argument for keeping Schafer than that he has improved Cornell to the level that these are metrics for "Good Long Term Performance."

C- Interesting argument but did not really answer the question. Is your position that because we are discussing what good long term performance is that we have met the long term performance goals? Come on, you can do better than that. Also you did not answer the second part. What is good performance in 11-12?

I suggest a rewrite.

Sure, kid. What you suggest is noted and logged.

I wait with baited breath.

What are you using for bait? Bated (contraction of abated), not baited. Unless you're trolling for mackerel.

I was thinking of red wigglers and definitely trolling.

Well, for some, I'm not trying to name anyone in particular, the Urban Dictionary holds some truth.

Jim Hyla
the Urban Dictionary holds some truth.

Hey, I remember this from The Soup! (NSFW)