Should He Stay or Should He Go

Poll

The Coach

This poll has expired. Voting is no longer possible.
94 votes were received.

Should He Stay	87		93%
Should He Go	7		7%

---

A decent interval has passed. I think it is time to ask the big questions:

A coach is only as good as his last season or 2. If you do not believe me ask Joe Torre or Terry Francona. Both raised their teams to the heights and were then ousted a few years later. Mike Schafer has done great things for Cornell Hockey but let's face reality, last season was a major disappointment. Between the losing record, goonish play, and the Coaches whining I was very disappointed.

I am not sure if Schafer is the man to right the ship. If I were the AD I would be inclined to let him try but make it clear there was a short leash. So, let me ask the question: Should he stay or should he go? If you are a Schafer fan tell us what would change your mind. If you are not do the same.

So when I reply "Should he stay", am I voicing my opinion or posing a question?

Good poll but wrongheaded approach.

You take "a coach is only as good as his last season or 2" as if that ought to be the measure. In fact, it's typically just an unfortunate side effect of the irritainment media, gullible ownership, and entitled fans.

1. There is no reason to assume anybody else out there would do a better job.

2. There is reason to assume that Schafer's body of work and reputation attracts prospects we would not otherwise get.

As long as those two statements hold, he should stay. Frankly, I have a hard time imagining either changing for years to come.

marty
So when I reply "Should he stay", am I voicing my opinion or posing a question?

Don't over think it.

If he goes, just don't steal our coach again.

Trotsky
Good poll but wrongheaded approach.

You take "a coach is only as good as his last season or 2" as if that ought to be the measure. In fact, it's typically just an unfortunate side effect of the irritainment media, gullible ownership, and entitled fans.

1. There is no reason to assume anybody else out there would do a better job.

2. There is reason to assume that Schafer's body of work and reputation attracts prospects we would not otherwise get.

As long as those two statements hold, he should stay. Frankly, I have a hard time imagining either changing for years to come.

I am not sure these statements hold. They are difficult to verify at best. If we had 2 more years like the last one would you change your tune?

Towerroad

Trotsky
Good poll but wrongheaded approach.

You take "a coach is only as good as his last season or 2" as if that ought to be the measure. In fact, it's typically just an unfortunate side effect of the irritainment media, gullible ownership, and entitled fans.

1. There is no reason to assume anybody else out there would do a better job.

2. There is reason to assume that Schafer's body of work and reputation attracts prospects we would not otherwise get.

As long as those two statements hold, he should stay. Frankly, I have a hard time imagining either changing for years to come.

I am not sure these statements hold. They are difficult to verify at best. If we had 2 more years like the last one would you change your tune?

Probably not. 3 mediocre years would not undo 17 good and/or great ones.

Losing sucks, but panic is not effective.

This all comes down to what one thinks the "baseline" of Cornell hockey is, absent any extraordinary effect either constructive or destructive. That in turn likely comes down to how they were during one's formative Lynah Faithful experience. So, for example, my first three years we missed the ECAC playoffs entirely with what in today's ECAC would translate into a 6th or 7th place team. When we perform better than that, I'm happy. When we get to the ECAC final and/or the NCAAs, I am ecstatic. Given that Schafer has delivered both those things regularly, I think he has "earned" the right to stay, essentially, forever.

Now for somebody who became a Cornell fan during the 105-5-2 stretch, or even during the 2002-10 stretch, their baseline is probably much higher and they assume ECAC byes fall from heaven and NCAAs bids are a civil right. For them, finishing .485 is unforgivable.

I understand that. I just think it's bonkers.

Cornell was one goal away from the Frozen Four just last year.

Trotsky

Towerroad

Trotsky
Good poll but wrongheaded approach.

You take "a coach is only as good as his last season or 2" as if that ought to be the measure. In fact, it's typically just an unfortunate side effect of the irritainment media, gullible ownership, and entitled fans.

1. There is no reason to assume anybody else out there would do a better job.

2. There is reason to assume that Schafer's body of work and reputation attracts prospects we would not otherwise get.

As long as those two statements hold, he should stay. Frankly, I have a hard time imagining either changing for years to come.

I am not sure these statements hold. They are difficult to verify at best. If we had 2 more years like the last one would you change your tune?

Probably not. 3 mediocre years would not undo 17 good and/or great ones.

Losing sucks, but panic is not effective.

This all comes down to what one thinks the "baseline" of Cornell hockey is, absent any extraordinary effect either constructive or destructive. That in turn likely comes down to how they were during one's formative Lynah Faithful experience. So, for example, my first three years we missed the ECAC playoffs entirely with what in today's ECAC would translate into a 6th or 7th place team. When we perform better than that, I'm happy. When we get to the ECAC final and/or the NCAAs, I am ecstatic. Given that Schafer has delivered both those things regularly, I think he has "earned" the right to stay, essentially, forever.

Now for somebody who became a Cornell fan during the 105-5-2 stretch, or even during the 2002-10 stretch, their baseline is probably much higher and they assume ECAC byes fall from heaven and NCAAs bids are a civil right. For them, finishing .485 is unforgivable.

I understand that. I just think it's bonkers.

It is always hard to give up the "devil you know" for a new one. So, to summarize, you would keep the coach even if he posted 3 consecutive sub 0.500 seasons and lead the nation in penalties each year. That is more loyalty than I could summon.

Towerroad


I am not sure these statements hold. They are difficult to verify at best. If we had 2 more years like the last one would you change your tune?

It bears noting that "the last one" involved a road win over a #1, a broken neck to a (likely) future captain, and ended a handful of bounces away from an NCAA appearance (or at least very near miss).

Towerroad

Trotsky

Towerroad

Trotsky
Good poll but wrongheaded approach.

You take "a coach is only as good as his last season or 2" as if that ought to be the measure. In fact, it's typically just an unfortunate side effect of the irritainment media, gullible ownership, and entitled fans.

1. There is no reason to assume anybody else out there would do a better job.

2. There is reason to assume that Schafer's body of work and reputation attracts prospects we would not otherwise get.

As long as those two statements hold, he should stay. Frankly, I have a hard time imagining either changing for years to come.

I am not sure these statements hold. They are difficult to verify at best. If we had 2 more years like the last one would you change your tune?

Probably not. 3 mediocre years would not undo 17 good and/or great ones.

Losing sucks, but panic is not effective.

This all comes down to what one thinks the "baseline" of Cornell hockey is, absent any extraordinary effect either constructive or destructive. That in turn likely comes down to how they were during one's formative Lynah Faithful experience. So, for example, my first three years we missed the ECAC playoffs entirely with what in today's ECAC would translate into a 6th or 7th place team. When we perform better than that, I'm happy. When we get to the ECAC final and/or the NCAAs, I am ecstatic. Given that Schafer has delivered both those things regularly, I think he has "earned" the right to stay, essentially, forever.

Now for somebody who became a Cornell fan during the 105-5-2 stretch, or even during the 2002-10 stretch, their baseline is probably much higher and they assume ECAC byes fall from heaven and NCAAs bids are a civil right. For them, finishing .485 is unforgivable.

I understand that. I just think it's bonkers.

It is always hard to give up the "devil you know" for a new one. So, to summarize, you would keep the coach even if he posted 3 consecutive sub 0.500 seasons and lead the nation in penalties each year. That is more loyalty than I could summon.

An anxiety attack is not a business plan.

Trotsky
This all comes down to what one thinks the "baseline" of Cornell hockey is, absent any extraordinary effect either constructive or destructive. That in turn likely comes down to how they were during one's formative Lynah Faithful experience. So, for example, my first three years we missed the ECAC playoffs entirely with what in today's ECAC would translate into a 6th or 7th place team. When we perform better than that, I'm happy. When we get to the ECAC final and/or the NCAAs, I am ecstatic. Given that Schafer has delivered both those things regularly, I think he has "earned" the right to stay, essentially, forever.

I have joked on Twitter that Cornell and Michigan both had a Hillel sandwich of a season. Twenty years ago, I was a junior when Cornell had a shit sandwich of a season: 6-19-1, including an 11-game losing streak. The 1992-93 season was a formative experience. It made the 1996 and 1997 ECAC Championships particularly special. No later than March 1997, I also concluded that Mike Schafer had earned the right to stay forever.

Since Mike Schafer took the job, Cornell has been the premier program in the ECAC. Although the 2009-10 and 2012-13 seasons fell a little and far short of expectations, respectively, I cannot fathom that replacing Mike Schafer would improve the hockey team.

Though very disappointed with this season, I think Coach Schafer should stay. I,like Trotsky, think making it to the ECAC Finals and earning a NC$$ bid is very successful season. Schafer has delivered on that more times than not.

Given the constraints of the academic index, lack of scholarships and limited schedule, we are not going to get the blue chippers and need hope that under the radar 16/17 year olds we recruit develop into solid 2-way players and with some luck a goal scoring touch. Getting to the frozen four and winning a championship takes a lot of luck (staying healthly), puck love in addition to skill and team work. For Cornell, I think that means being healthy, being very strong defensively and getting some puck love.

I also imagine there is quite a bit of skill and art to managing 18-23 year olds who have a full load of classes, raging hormones and every thing else that kids that age go through. Most years, the team comes together and the whole is better than the parts. Then there are some years like this one, where things are very out of sorts (at least on the ice). It is cyclic, kids come, kids graduate, and some years the mix of players is better than others. I'm willing to bet this year was an anomaly.

So, can someone post a link to the "Fire Red Berenson" thread on the Michigan boards. The maize and blue must be lining up to fire him after failing to get to the NC$$ this year.

ursusminor
If he goes, just don't steal our coach again.

Given his astonishing levels of success at RPI so far...I don't think you have to worry about that

Towerroad

marty
So when I reply "Should he stay", am I voicing my opinion or posing a question?

Don't over think it.

Fair enough. Obviously you didn't.

Facetimer was a much better troll.

DisplacedCornellian

ursusminor
If he goes, just don't steal our coach again.

Given his astonishing levels of success at RPI so far...I don't think you have to worry about that

Wait until you see TBRW's prediction for next season.

My concern is not so much the losses this season, but the manner of the losses. Giving up leads, inconsistency of performance from period to period, taking stupid and goonish penalties, and not doing the small things correctly (blocking shots, winning battles on the boards, etc.). Losing to a more talented team that executes well is understandable. Losing to a team of similar or lesser talent by making the same, very preventable mistakes, is not acceptable.

In spite of this, I can't fire Schafer after one bad season. Two or three more years of poor performances and underachievement, then we can consider changing the coach.

Trotsky

Towerroad

Trotsky
Good poll but wrongheaded approach.

You take "a coach is only as good as his last season or 2" as if that ought to be the measure. In fact, it's typically just an unfortunate side effect of the irritainment media, gullible ownership, and entitled fans.

1. There is no reason to assume anybody else out there would do a better job.

2. There is reason to assume that Schafer's body of work and reputation attracts prospects we would not otherwise get.

As long as those two statements hold, he should stay. Frankly, I have a hard time imagining either changing for years to come.

I am not sure these statements hold. They are difficult to verify at best. If we had 2 more years like the last one would you change your tune?

Probably not. 3 mediocre years would not undo 17 good and/or great ones.

At some point if there ae enough losing or mediocre seasons you can identify a trend. If relative lack of success becomes a trend then maybe you consider making changes. We're not there yet, at least not in my mind (one year does not make a trend). Even then, as others have mentioned, you have to consider the alternatives. What's the likelihood that a new coach would have any more success than the old? Things need to be pretty bad before you make a change just for the sake of change, IMO.

I suspect it's the other stuff that is bothering Towerroad the most. He doesn't like the undisciplined play on the ice and schafer's attitude/bearig in many situations. I can see wanting to make changes if you don't think the team represents the University well anymore. That's a different question from whether the won-loss record warrants a change. but of course, perception are usually rosier when the wins are piling up.

My take on a potential coaching change, especially when the current coach has done a good job in the recent past, is always to question: Who can be brought in that is thought would do better? If that question cannot be answered with a decent amount of certainty then I am in favor of keeping the current coach. With that being said I think that an evaluation of that question should be done every 2-3 years depending upon performance.

For me it comes down to who can CU realistically bring in that would do better in the long run? I don't know of anyone. That person might be out there I just don't know who it is. Add to it, that while this season certainly was a disappointment, it was only one real bad season. If CU has 2 more years of similar results then I would certainly reevaluate my position.

I am not so much concerned with one bad season as I am with what I perceive as the college game evolving and the Cornell coaching/recruiting not evolving to keep up. Add to that an apparent reluctance to change the way the PP is run and a commitment to play a defensive style even when the situation doesn't warrant it. (Yes, I understand the Schafer scheme, but sometimes it needs to be abandoned/changed as the season/game/period warrants) Those are little complaints for the moment but if they are not solved then they could sway me to change my mind about the coaching situation as I think the inability to adapt will lead to more seasons like this past one.

cbuckser

Trotsky
This all comes down to what one thinks the "baseline" of Cornell hockey is, absent any extraordinary effect either constructive or destructive. That in turn likely comes down to how they were during one's formative Lynah Faithful experience. So, for example, my first three years we missed the ECAC playoffs entirely with what in today's ECAC would translate into a 6th or 7th place team. When we perform better than that, I'm happy. When we get to the ECAC final and/or the NCAAs, I am ecstatic. Given that Schafer has delivered both those things regularly, I think he has "earned" the right to stay, essentially, forever.

I have joked on Twitter that Cornell and Michigan both had a Hillel sandwich of a season. Twenty years ago, I was a junior when Cornell had a shit sandwich of a season: 6-19-1, including an 11-game losing streak. The 1992-93 season was a formative experience. It made the 1996 and 1997 ECAC Championships particularly special. No later than March 1997, I also concluded that Mike Schafer had earned the right to stay forever.

Since Mike Schafer took the job, Cornell has been the premier program in the ECAC. Although the 2009-10 and 2012-13 seasons fell a little and far short of expectations, respectively, I cannot fathom that replacing Mike Schafer would improve the hockey team.

This

Mike Schafer is more than a hockey coach. He is part of the Ithaca community. He is fiercely loyal to his team mates, players and friends. He seldom has a bad thing to say about anyone other than officials. He has turned down some of the top jobs in the country over the years for much more money to stay in Ithaca. Sure he has his moments, but I think his heart is always in the right place. He is someone parents want their kids to play for.

Currently 43-3, nuff said.

I am more disappointed in this year's season than almost anybody on this forum. I would rather watch exciting offensive hockey than defensive hockey. I think think Cornell has been slipping these last few seasons. I feel entitled to an NCAA tournament berth every year, or close (and with Cornell's history and fan base and the amount of time I invest following the program, I do not think this is unreasonable). With all of that said, firing Schafer at this point is ludicrous. As previously mentioned, firing successful coaches following a poor year or two is not a good policy. You also imply there have been multiple recent bad seasons...and yet if Axell's stick doesn't break last year Cornell might be have been playing in the Frozen Four. If Cornell doesn't hit multiple posts versus Q this year who knows what happens? Overall, this year sucked, but Schafer's track record is far too good to even think about firing him after a single poor season. Beyond the wins, he truly cares about the program and the school and the recruiting classes on paper have been strong recently. And, as others have asked, who would be better? When Schafer was hired it was not clear whatsoever he would be a great coach. The program is in better standing now than it was then, but I still highly doubt Cornell could bring in some big name with a great history of success. Basically, we got lucky with Schafer, and there's no reason to think we'll get lucky again.

Still, I do appreciate some negativity on this forum. I don't want Schafer to go, but I do not think anybody should be content with this display this season. If this season is repeated for another couple years, which I doubt, then I would argue he should go. But not yet, not even close.

BearLover
Still, I do appreciate some negativity on this forum. I don't want Schafer to go, but I do not think anybody should be content with this display this season.

I like this. It is a good reminder that every contrary view isn't "trolling". ScrewBU is a troll. towerroad is a fan who IMO is overreacting to a bad season but isn't crazy for taking the time to ask the question.

Of course Schafer shouldn't be fired. If a season that includes an NCAA bid, a first-round win and a finish a hair's breadth from the Final Four is part of the evidence that "there have been two bad years in a row" you need to reexamine your premises. It is also hasty to diagnose locker room issues as pathological or incurable after a single season. Yes, this year saw far too much goonery. It is not yet a pattern.

BearLover
I am more disappointed in this year's season than almost anybody on this forum. I would rather watch exciting offensive hockey than defensive hockey. I think think Cornell has been slipping these last few seasons. I feel entitled to an NCAA tournament berth every year, or close (and with Cornell's history and fan base and the amount of time I invest following the program, I do not think this is unreasonable). With all of that said, firing Schafer at this point is ludicrous. As previously mentioned, firing successful coaches following a poor year or two is not a good policy. You also imply there have been multiple recent bad seasons...and yet if Axell's stick doesn't break last year Cornell might be have been playing in the Frozen Four. If Cornell doesn't hit multiple posts versus Q this year who knows what happens? Overall, this year sucked, but Schafer's track record is far too good to even think about firing him after a single poor season. Beyond the wins, he truly cares about the program and the school and the recruiting classes on paper have been strong recently. And, as others have asked, who would be better? When Schafer was hired it was not clear whatsoever he would be a great coach. The program is in better standing now than it was then, but I still highly doubt Cornell could bring in some big name with a great history of success. Basically, we got lucky with Schafer, and there's no reason to think we'll get lucky again.

Still, I do appreciate some negativity on this forum. I don't want Schafer to go, but I do not think anybody should be content with this display this season. If this season is repeated for another couple years, which I doubt, then I would argue he should go. But not yet, not even close.

I don't think anyone is content with this season. However, I have to disagree with the idea that any of us have a right to feel entitled to anything regarding our program.

In my view the only ones who should feel entitled are those whose lives are directly involved with the program. The administration has a right to feel the coaches will act in the best interests of the school. The coaches should feel they have administration support. And most importantly, and also different than most Div. I sports, the players have a right to feel, within some limitations, that the coaches and school have the players best interests at heart. I don't know the inner workings of the school, but from what I see happening, I think those values are basically being reached.

As fans, I think our rights are just that all of the above are putting out their best efforts. Win or lose, I want to feel that the effort was there. Obviously at times this year not everyone, including the coaches, felt that was true. I doubt that we will, or should, ever know why that happened. However, we should take some solace that the coaches were able, to some degree, to modify that behavior. Am I happy with this season, no. Do I see signs that suggest it won't be repeated, yes.

I don't think it matters a hoot how much time any of us are investing into following the program. Unless we are actively involved with helping the program, all we get to do is to watch and hopefully enjoy. Expecting more, it seems to me, is to be acting like we are a big donor at a large Div. I football program, and I don't ever want to think we are headed in that direction.

Finally, I don't think we got lucky in finding Schafer. Before he came many had been hoping for some time that the U would find some way to bring him back. It was known how much he cared about Cornell and the program, and his reputation as a great recruiter preceeded him. I certainly didn't know anything about his X and O ability, but I suspect that was also known by those to whom it mattered. I have said it before, and will repeat it now, I think the AD has generally done a very good job in picking coaches. I just hope he can finally right the football, and maybe the basketball, program.

Jim

Thanks for the excellent reply. I agree that we should not feel entitled to any specific performance with respect to any Cornell team. The best Lacrosse game I have seen in the last 20 years we lost. However, you put your finger on something we should feel entitled to. You expressed it as the team and coaches best efforts.

We are an Ivy League team. For all the limitations that being a member puts on our athletic endeavors I have never heard a serious discussion of leaving the Ivy League so we could be free of the athletic restrictions that come with membership. As members of this elite club, we are supposed to keep athletics in their proper perspective. Cornell is a great instituion of higher learning, scholarship and charater building first and an ice hockey team second not the other way around like far too many universities. I can safely assume that no one on this board wants to trade places with Kentucky.

So, when I see a player skate to the face off circle and jam the end of his stick into an opposing players nuts, when I see that we lead the country in goonery by 1.5 minutes per game, when I see the coach repeatedly whining about officiating and badgering an opposing coach for winning a lopsided game I think that we have crossed an unwritten line about what it means to be an Ivy League team. My biggest fear is that, in order to recruit better players, we are becoming more focused on preparing players for the NHL than preparing student athletes.

I sincerely hope I am wrong. I can accept never winning another NC$$ title or even making it to the frozen four. I have a real problem with what I saw this year. I am not calling for the coaches head. However, if I were the AD I would want to sit down with the coach and understand what happened this year and to make sure he had a serious plan to right the ship. I would also make sure he knew that there was a leash and that the AD had a firm grip on it regardless of how long it was.

Two years in a row of this sort of performance and I would be rummaging around my tool shed for my pitchfork and torch.

Towerroad
So, when I see a player skate to the face off circle and jam the end of his stick into an opposing players nuts, when I see that we lead the country in goonery by 1.5 minutes per game, when I see the coach repeatedly whining about officiating and badgering an opposing coach for winning a lopsided game I think that we have crossed an unwritten line about what it means to be an Ivy League team.

Fair enough. Most of us were bothered by the penalties and Schafer's reaction that it was the officials' fault, not our players'. Most of that may have been nonsense to feed the media, while a very different message was delivered in the locker room. We can hope.

"Leading the league in penalty minutes" is in a way misleading because the bulk comes from two extraordinary games. Notice that on that list #2 was Quinnipiac and #3 was Denver. Now, granted, the common denominator in those two games was Cornell. I don't want our school represented by that, either.

Sorting the players by PIM, the top 8 are all returning. Ferlin and Lowry are among them, and they may have often been retaliating against goonery directed their way. The top three, McCarron, Mowrey, and de Swardt, are less, in the immortal words of R. J. MacReady, "even tempered."

So we'll have a perfect chance next year to test the hypothesis that this was an aberration and not a game plan.

cbuckser
Since Mike Schafer took the job, Cornell has been the premier program in the ECAC. Although the 2009-10 and 2012-13 seasons fell a little and far short of expectations, respectively, I cannot fathom that replacing Mike Schafer would improve the hockey team.

Well said.

Looking at this as an outsider, I see there being two related, but separate, problems that the Ivies face. One is the lack of athletic scholarships, and the other is the academic standards. The first could be changed if the school Presidents or whoever decides on these things want to, but the second I doubt that you even want to change. The only reason that the Ivies and some other schools are able to compete at the level they do in hockey is the presence of the Junior leagues in Canada which syphon off the hockey players who are not interested or even capable of higher education. The lack of such as an alternative in basketball and football gives IMHO no hope in those sports.

Many other schools face one or both of the same problems, perhaps at a lower level, but also perhaps additional problems. Union, also without athletic scholarships, got to the the FF last year. Their academic standards are lower than Cornell's, but they do have academic standards. If they can get to the FF, than so should any other ECAC school. Speaking from RPI's point of view, we do offer scholarships, and although the academic standards are not at the level of the Ivies, there are players who otherwise might be of interest, who wouldn't be admitted. In addition, we have other significant problems that Cornell doesn't have: being a technical school with a limited choice of majors, the male/female ratio, and beautiful downtown Troy. (I was told that the m/f problem is not real because the players all have girlfriends already, but I think it is.)

In my head, I saw the end of the 2009-10 season to be a major decision point for Schafer himself. If ever he thought about trying his hand at the pro-level, that was going to be it, considering CU had just come off an ECAC Championship, was losing the likes of Scrivens, Greening, and the Nashes, and had an obvious successor already on the bench in Casey Jones. In my (probably fictional) scenario, that was the point where Schafer had to decide whether he was going to be a Jack Parker/Red Berenson and stay at the college level for the rest of his career, or try to become a Bob Johnson and make the jump to the pro level.

Trotsky

Towerroad
So, when I see a player skate to the face off circle and jam the end of his stick into an opposing players nuts, when I see that we lead the country in goonery by 1.5 minutes per game, when I see the coach repeatedly whining about officiating and badgering an opposing coach for winning a lopsided game I think that we have crossed an unwritten line about what it means to be an Ivy League team.

Fair enough. Most of us were bothered by the penalties and Schafer's reaction that it was the officials' fault, not our players'. Most of that may have been nonsense to feed the media, while a very different message was delivered in the locker room. We can hope.

"Leading the league in penalty minutes" is in a way misleading because the bulk comes from two extraordinary games. Notice that on that list #2 was Quinnipiac and #3 was Denver. Now, granted, the common denominator in those two games was Cornell. I don't want our school represented by that, either.

Sorting the players by PIM, the top 8 are all returning. Ferlin and Lowry are among them, and they may have often been retaliating against goonery directed their way. The top three, McCarron, Mowrey, and de Swardt, are less, in the immortal words of R. J. MacReady, "even tempered."

So we'll have a perfect chance next year to test the hypothesis that this was an aberration and not a game plan.

Additionally I think we need to look at the PIM's before and after the Brown game where Schafer sat many players. Before that game CU was averaging 19.05 PIM per game and after that they averaged 16.67 PIM per game. It's not a significant reduction but it did go in the right direction. Additionally, and I am not excusing what happened, the 100 PIM game with Q is in there in the "after Brown game" portion of which 63 minutes were handed out at one time. If the Q game is excluded then the average drops to 10.71 PIM per game. So Schafer did try and I think sucessfully for the most part send a message by sitting players.

MattS
Additionally I think we need to look at the PIM's before and after the Brown game where Schafer sat many players. Before that game CU was averaging 19.05 PIM per game and after that they averaged 16.67 PIM per game. It's not a significant reduction but it did go in the right direction. Additionally, and I am not excusing what happened, the 100 PIM game with Q is in there in the "after Brown game" portion of which 63 minutes were handed out at one time. If the Q game is excluded then the average drops to 10.71 PIM per game. So Schafer did try and I think sucessfully for the most part send a message by sitting players.

That's a good line of inquiry. But remember that it's a really small sample so the change might not be statistically significant.

KeithK

MattS
Additionally I think we need to look at the PIM's before and after the Brown game where Schafer sat many players. Before that game CU was averaging 19.05 PIM per game and after that they averaged 16.67 PIM per game. It's not a significant reduction but it did go in the right direction. Additionally, and I am not excusing what happened, the 100 PIM game with Q is in there in the "after Brown game" portion of which 63 minutes were handed out at one time. If the Q game is excluded then the average drops to 10.71 PIM per game. So Schafer did try and I think sucessfully for the most part send a message by sitting players.

That's a good line of inquiry. But remember that it's a really small sample so the change might not be statistically significant.

I think if you applied similar logic to Q or Denver they would start looking like saints as well.

Towerroad

KeithK

MattS
Additionally I think we need to look at the PIM's before and after the Brown game where Schafer sat many players. Before that game CU was averaging 19.05 PIM per game and after that they averaged 16.67 PIM per game. It's not a significant reduction but it did go in the right direction. Additionally, and I am not excusing what happened, the 100 PIM game with Q is in there in the "after Brown game" portion of which 63 minutes were handed out at one time. If the Q game is excluded then the average drops to 10.71 PIM per game. So Schafer did try and I think sucessfully for the most part send a message by sitting players.

That's a good line of inquiry. But remember that it's a really small sample so the change might not be statistically significant.

I think if you applied similar logic to Q or Denver they would start looking like saints as well.

What logic are you refering to? Keith's? Or some part of Matt's?

Jim Hyla

Towerroad

KeithK

MattS
Additionally I think we need to look at the PIM's before and after the Brown game where Schafer sat many players. Before that game CU was averaging 19.05 PIM per game and after that they averaged 16.67 PIM per game. It's not a significant reduction but it did go in the right direction. Additionally, and I am not excusing what happened, the 100 PIM game with Q is in there in the "after Brown game" portion of which 63 minutes were handed out at one time. If the Q game is excluded then the average drops to 10.71 PIM per game. So Schafer did try and I think sucessfully for the most part send a message by sitting players.

That's a good line of inquiry. But remember that it's a really small sample so the change might not be statistically significant.

I think if you applied similar logic to Q or Denver they would start looking like saints as well.

What logic are you refering to? Keith's? Or some part of Matt's?

I assume he means Matts.

I made a scatter plot of Cornell's penalties and minutes by game. From visual insection (which can be misleading) there's a little bit of a downward trend in penalty minutes after the Brown game (game 20), of course not including the Quinnipiac brawl. There might be a comparable trend with minutes but it's very small if it's there. I suspect that a rigorous statistical analysis (which I'm not inclined to do at the moment) would show that these trends aren't statistically significant.

For kicks I plotted the data for Q alongside. There isn't really a lot fo difference between the trends.

Jim Hyla

BearLover
I am more disappointed in this year's season than almost anybody on this forum. I would rather watch exciting offensive hockey than defensive hockey. I think think Cornell has been slipping these last few seasons. I feel entitled to an NCAA tournament berth every year, or close (and with Cornell's history and fan base and the amount of time I invest following the program, I do not think this is unreasonable). With all of that said, firing Schafer at this point is ludicrous. As previously mentioned, firing successful coaches following a poor year or two is not a good policy. You also imply there have been multiple recent bad seasons...and yet if Axell's stick doesn't break last year Cornell might be have been playing in the Frozen Four. If Cornell doesn't hit multiple posts versus Q this year who knows what happens? Overall, this year sucked, but Schafer's track record is far too good to even think about firing him after a single poor season. Beyond the wins, he truly cares about the program and the school and the recruiting classes on paper have been strong recently. And, as others have asked, who would be better? When Schafer was hired it was not clear whatsoever he would be a great coach. The program is in better standing now than it was then, but I still highly doubt Cornell could bring in some big name with a great history of success. Basically, we got lucky with Schafer, and there's no reason to think we'll get lucky again.

Still, I do appreciate some negativity on this forum. I don't want Schafer to go, but I do not think anybody should be content with this display this season. If this season is repeated for another couple years, which I doubt, then I would argue he should go. But not yet, not even close.

I don't think it matters a hoot how much time any of us are investing into following the program. Unless we are actively involved with helping the program, all we get to do is to watch and hopefully enjoy. Expecting more, it seems to me, is to be acting like we are a big donor at a large Div. I football program, and I don't ever want to think we are headed in that direction.

I am saying that if I am going to put so much into following the program, I expect them to win. If they are not going to win, I am not going to put as much in to following them.

BearLover

Jim Hyla

BearLover
I am more disappointed in this year's season than almost anybody on this forum. I would rather watch exciting offensive hockey than defensive hockey. I think think Cornell has been slipping these last few seasons. I feel entitled to an NCAA tournament berth every year, or close (and with Cornell's history and fan base and the amount of time I invest following the program, I do not think this is unreasonable). With all of that said, firing Schafer at this point is ludicrous. As previously mentioned, firing successful coaches following a poor year or two is not a good policy. You also imply there have been multiple recent bad seasons...and yet if Axell's stick doesn't break last year Cornell might be have been playing in the Frozen Four. If Cornell doesn't hit multiple posts versus Q this year who knows what happens? Overall, this year sucked, but Schafer's track record is far too good to even think about firing him after a single poor season. Beyond the wins, he truly cares about the program and the school and the recruiting classes on paper have been strong recently. And, as others have asked, who would be better? When Schafer was hired it was not clear whatsoever he would be a great coach. The program is in better standing now than it was then, but I still highly doubt Cornell could bring in some big name with a great history of success. Basically, we got lucky with Schafer, and there's no reason to think we'll get lucky again.

Still, I do appreciate some negativity on this forum. I don't want Schafer to go, but I do not think anybody should be content with this display this season. If this season is repeated for another couple years, which I doubt, then I would argue he should go. But not yet, not even close.

I don't think it matters a hoot how much time any of us are investing into following the program. Unless we are actively involved with helping the program, all we get to do is to watch and hopefully enjoy. Expecting more, it seems to me, is to be acting like we are a big donor at a large Div. I football program, and I don't ever want to think we are headed in that direction.

I am saying that if I am going to put so much into following the program, I expect them to win. If they are not going to win, I am not going to put as much in to following them.

That's a reasonable position to take. I think it's short sighted though. There's more to watching sports and being a fan than just celebrating wins. There's a lot of fun to be had watching teams that don't win if you can just sit back and enjoy the ride.

For example, I started watching Cornell hockey in the aforementioned 92-93 season. Te results on the ice were brutal but even still I had a blast as a fan and became absolutely hooked (and hooked on hockey in general, which I wasn't really a fan of before that),

KeithK

BearLover

Jim Hyla

BearLover
I am more disappointed in this year's season than almost anybody on this forum. I would rather watch exciting offensive hockey than defensive hockey. I think think Cornell has been slipping these last few seasons. I feel entitled to an NCAA tournament berth every year, or close (and with Cornell's history and fan base and the amount of time I invest following the program, I do not think this is unreasonable). With all of that said, firing Schafer at this point is ludicrous. As previously mentioned, firing successful coaches following a poor year or two is not a good policy. You also imply there have been multiple recent bad seasons...and yet if Axell's stick doesn't break last year Cornell might be have been playing in the Frozen Four. If Cornell doesn't hit multiple posts versus Q this year who knows what happens? Overall, this year sucked, but Schafer's track record is far too good to even think about firing him after a single poor season. Beyond the wins, he truly cares about the program and the school and the recruiting classes on paper have been strong recently. And, as others have asked, who would be better? When Schafer was hired it was not clear whatsoever he would be a great coach. The program is in better standing now than it was then, but I still highly doubt Cornell could bring in some big name with a great history of success. Basically, we got lucky with Schafer, and there's no reason to think we'll get lucky again.

Still, I do appreciate some negativity on this forum. I don't want Schafer to go, but I do not think anybody should be content with this display this season. If this season is repeated for another couple years, which I doubt, then I would argue he should go. But not yet, not even close.

I don't think it matters a hoot how much time any of us are investing into following the program. Unless we are actively involved with helping the program, all we get to do is to watch and hopefully enjoy. Expecting more, it seems to me, is to be acting like we are a big donor at a large Div. I football program, and I don't ever want to think we are headed in that direction.

I am saying that if I am going to put so much into following the program, I expect them to win. If they are not going to win, I am not going to put as much in to following them.

That's a reasonable position to take. I think it's short sighted though. There's more to watching sports and being a fan than just celebrating wins. There's a lot of fun to be had watching teams that don't win if you can just sit back and enjoy the ride.

For example, I started watching Cornell hockey in the aforementioned 92-93 season. Te results on the ice were brutal but even still I had a blast as a fan and became absolutely hooked (and hooked on hockey in general, which I wasn't really a fan of before that),

I started following the team in the late '80s but didn't see any games at Lynah regularly until the early '90s. The '93-'94 team was Not Good, but I had a hell of a lot of fun going to games that year. In particular, the heckling of the Keebler Elves was pretty epic.

Jim Hyla

Towerroad

KeithK

MattS
Additionally I think we need to look at the PIM's before and after the Brown game where Schafer sat many players. Before that game CU was averaging 19.05 PIM per game and after that they averaged 16.67 PIM per game. It's not a significant reduction but it did go in the right direction. Additionally, and I am not excusing what happened, the 100 PIM game with Q is in there in the "after Brown game" portion of which 63 minutes were handed out at one time. If the Q game is excluded then the average drops to 10.71 PIM per game. So Schafer did try and I think sucessfully for the most part send a message by sitting players.

That's a good line of inquiry. But remember that it's a really small sample so the change might not be statistically significant.

I think if you applied similar logic to Q or Denver they would start looking like saints as well.

What logic are you refering to? Keith's? Or some part of Matt's?

Matts

BearLover
I am saying that if I am going to put so much into following the program, I expect them to win. If they are not going to win, I am not going to put as much in to following them.

I don't think anybody misunderstood what you were saying. I think it's a ridiculous position to take, personally. Nobody likes bandwagon "fans," and there's a reason for it. They don't have any special love for Cornell hockey, they just happened to attend Cornell and like to be fans of a winning hockey team, and IMHO that's a pretty weak kind of "fandom."

BearLover
I am saying that if I am going to put so much into following the program, I expect them to win. If they are not going to win, I am not going to put as much in to following them.

This is a fascinating statement to think about in terms of fan psychology. Do we become fans of things that we genuinely like, or because there's a quality product? Hockey is a big sport on the Cornell campus. I think it's a combination of factors: 1) Historically, it's been a good program and it's one of the few sports in which we're regularly nationally competitive. 2) There are a lot of people on the CU campus who genuinely like hockey. 3) The venue atmosphere & "Lynah Faithful" membership has made it a trendy "thing to do" in a see/be seen aspect. For the last game of the 1992-93 season, some student season ticket holders showed up with paper bags over their head, but they still showed up, even after 11-straight losses.

One example I'll use is Trinity College Squash. The squash matches are known to be jam-packed and rowdy. Do you ever expect to hear out of American undergrads anywhere "I'm big into squash?" But when you put them at a place where the squash team has won 12 of 13 national championships and had a decade-long winning streak, they're willing to put in the effort to show up and watch and learn and really get into the sport. How many of you have taken the time to go to more than one squash match while at Cornell? The CU Squash team has cracked the top 5 nationally in the past 2 years. Does knowing this make you more interested in checking them out or is there no change? Interesting reaction, right?

I'm guilty myself. I watched my first live basketball game since college when CU made the NCAAs, and even went to Syracuse for the Kentucky game. I hate watching basketball. I think it's a dumb sport for many reasons I won't go into here. Yet there I was, maybe because of the noteriety, and the magnitude of the team's accomplishment. I don't understand wrestling much at all, but I beamed with pride when I found out that Kyle Dake won his final last week. Baseball and hockey have always been my favorite sports, but my time at Cornell gave me the opportunity to become a big fan of the game of lacrosse as well. Would I have become as big a fan if CU lax didn't have its historical and current pedigree? I don't know.

Fan psychology is so weird: Americans love winning and dominance (well worded by BearLover's statement above), yet always yearn for the ultimate underdog to take out a dominant Goliath (as long as its not YOUR Goliath, right?). We take pride in being there when a team is pathetic and then feel justified in sneering down at "bandwagoners" when fortunes turn for the better. We get annoyed with other huge, arrogant opposing fanbases, yet celebrate the traditions of our own. Basically, everyone possesses some level of hypocrisy when it comes to sports.

RichH
I'm guilty myself. I watched my first live basketball game since college when CU made the NCAAs, and even went to Syracuse for the Kentucky game. I hate watching basketball. I think it's a dumb sport for many reasons I won't go into here. Yet there I was, maybe because of the noteriety, and the magnitude of the team's accomplishment. I don't understand wrestling much at all, but I beamed with pride when I found out that Kyle Dake won his final last week. Baseball and hockey have always been my favorite sports, but my time at Cornell gave me the opportunity to become a big fan of the game of lacrosse as well. Would I have become as big a fan if CU lax didn't have its historical and current pedigree? I don't know.

The question I have for you is did you consider yourself a Cornell basketball fan when you were watching the tournament teams? I watched at least one of the tournament games that Cornell played in those years even though I don't like squeakball but I wouldn't have ever said I was a fan of the team. I'm just a proud Cornellian who liked seeing my school do well. Just attending a sporting event doesn't make one a "fan". At least not in the way I use the word (short for "fanatic". If one isn't a fan it's certainly more entertaining to watch a good team play than a bad one (generally speaking).

WHY ARE SO MANY OF YOU SO WRONG ABOUT BASKETBALL!?

Basketball and hockey are not mutually exclusive. It isn't like being a fan of both hockey and watching children drown in insufficiently frozen lakes.

ugarte
WHY ARE SO MANY OF YOU SO WRONG ABOUT BASKETBALL!?

Basketball and hockey are not mutually exclusive. It isn't like being a fan of both hockey and watching children drown in insufficiently frozen lakes.

Swimming upstream, are we.

ursusminor
the male/female ratio

This one is introduces an inclusion bias and is susceptible to too many confounding variables. You should instead use the male/attractive female ratio.

TimV

ursusminor
the male/female ratio

This one is introduces an inclusion bias and is susceptible to too many confounding variables. You should instead use the male/attractive female ratio.

Because among the characteristics associated with male engineers is "attractiveness" right? Welcome to the 21st Century.

I am saying that if I am going to put so much into following the program, I expect them to win. If they are not going to win, I am not going to put as much in to following them.

This has to be joking, if not outright trolling. It's as if somebody tried to personify an Onion parody of a Patriots fan posting on Urban Bâby.

4 days short of 4/1, but I aint buying this is a living human being's mindset.

Trotsky

I am saying that if I am going to put so much into following the program, I expect them to win. If they are not going to win, I am not going to put as much in to following them.

This has to be joking, if not outright trolling. It's as if somebody tried to personify an Onion parody of a Patriots fan posting on Urban Bâby.

4 days short of 4/1, but I aint buying this is a living human being's mindset.

I'm going to play my "call out" card here. This is exactly the way most people act, even if they don't admit it. I know for a fact that this is true for me: I pay more attention when Cornell is doing well than when they are doing poorly. I'm neither proud of it nor ashamed of it: it just is what it is. BearLover is at least being honest.

Kyle Rose

Trotsky

I am saying that if I am going to put so much into following the program, I expect them to win. If they are not going to win, I am not going to put as much in to following them.

This has to be joking, if not outright trolling. It's as if somebody tried to personify an Onion parody of a Patriots fan posting on Urban Bâby.

4 days short of 4/1, but I aint buying this is a living human being's mindset.

I'm going to play my "call out" card here. This is exactly the way most people act, even if they don't admit it. I know for a fact that this is true for me: I pay more attention when Cornell is doing well than when they are doing poorly. I'm neither proud of it nor ashamed of it: it just is what it is. BearLover is at least being honest.

I think it's slightly valid for a lot of people. I picked all the best teams in professional sports when I was five, so I'm a Niners fan. I spent the last decade following the Niners pretty closely, but my interest definitely increased when they got good.

That being said, ditching a team for not winning is, obviously, lame.

Kyle Rose

Trotsky

I am saying that if I am going to put so much into following the program, I expect them to win. If they are not going to win, I am not going to put as much in to following them.

This has to be joking, if not outright trolling. It's as if somebody tried to personify an Onion parody of a Patriots fan posting on Urban Bâby.

4 days short of 4/1, but I aint buying this is a living human being's mindset.

I'm going to play my "call out" card here. This is exactly the way most people act, even if they don't admit it. I know for a fact that this is true for me: I pay more attention when Cornell is doing well than when they are doing poorly. I'm neither proud of it nor ashamed of it: it just is what it is. BearLover is at least being honest.

Nope. To be an honest rogue is still to be a rogue.

I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he's kidding. And I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are being perverse in arguing a point for pleasure.

"Mediocrities everywhere, I absolve you."

Dafatone
That being said, ditching a team for not winning is, obviously, lame.

And yet, neither I nor BearLover offered anything like "ditching [the] team". Your straw man is burning.

Trotsky
I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he's kidding. And I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are being perverse in arguing a point for pleasure.

"Mediocrities everywhere, I absolve you."

You win. I admit you are a better fan than I am.

Next.

ugarte

TimV

ursusminor
the male/female ratio

This one is introduces an inclusion bias and is susceptible to too many confounding variables. You should instead use the male/attractive female ratio.

Because among the characteristics associated with male engineers is "attractiveness" right? Welcome to the 21st Century.

What? You don't watch Big Bang Theory???

Trotsky

Kyle Rose

Trotsky

I am saying that if I am going to put so much into following the program, I expect them to win. If they are not going to win, I am not going to put as much in to following them.

This has to be joking, if not outright trolling. It's as if somebody tried to personify an Onion parody of a Patriots fan posting on Urban Bâby.

4 days short of 4/1, but I aint buying this is a living human being's mindset.

I'm going to play my "call out" card here. This is exactly the way most people act, even if they don't admit it. I know for a fact that this is true for me: I pay more attention when Cornell is doing well than when they are doing poorly. I'm neither proud of it nor ashamed of it: it just is what it is. BearLover is at least being honest.

Nope. To be an honest rogue is still to be a rogue.

I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he's kidding. And I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are being perverse in arguing a point for pleasure.

"Mediocrities everywhere, I absolve you."

It's all a manner of degrees. If someone's attitude is "I will not pay attention to the team unless it is challenging for the national championship!" then they're not really a fan. If the attitude is "the team isn't winning so I spend less time obsessively reading eLynah and am a little less likely to make long road trips to see the team play" then that's pretty damn reasonable. Only a true fanatic's intesity is completely unaffected by the results on the ice.

Not that there's anything wrong with being a true fanatic!

Kyle Rose

Trotsky
I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he's kidding. And I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are being perverse in arguing a point for pleasure.

"Mediocrities everywhere, I absolve you."

You win. I admit you are a better fan than I am.

Next.

And.................. scene.

Absolutely ridiculous overreaction to my last post. And it's not the disagreement that bothers me; it's the trite smartass "no one can possibly be this dumb, he must be a troll" comments that twelve-year-olds go around posting on the internet.

I never said at any point I wouldn't follow the team if they were bad. I said I wouldn't follow them as much, and I wouldn't commit as much to them.
Are you honestly telling me that you'd go to exactly as many games and post on this forum exactly as much and sit through exactly as many Redcast broadcasts if Cornell were .400 instead of .650? Do you honestly think nearly as many people would pack Lynah in the first place if Cornell hadn't won so much in the past? You're delusional if you think so. I'm not travelling 8 hours to watch a shitty team play, I'll tell you that much, and I doubt there are many here who would. I'm never going to stop following Cornell hockey, but I am sure as hell not putting in as much effort as when they are actually good.

Who here followed women's hockey until they got good these past four seasons? 5% of who follow them now? What a bunch of hypocrites.

BearLover
Absolutely ridiculous overreaction to my last post. And it's not the disagreement that bothers me; it's the trite smartass "no one can possibly be this dumb, he must be a troll" comments that twelve-year-olds go around posting on the internet.

I never said at any point I wouldn't follow the team if they were bad. I said I wouldn't follow them as much, and I wouldn't commit as much to them.
Are you honestly telling me that you'd go to exactly as many games and post on this forum exactly as much and sit through exactly as many Redcast broadcasts if Cornell were .400 instead of .650? Do you honestly think nearly as many people would pack Lynah in the first place if Cornell hadn't won so much in the past? You're delusional if you think so. I'm not travelling 8 hours to watch a shitty team play, I'll tell you that much, and I doubt there are many here who would. I'm never going to stop following Cornell hockey, but I am sure as hell not putting in as much effort as when they are actually good.

Who here followed women's hockey until they got good these past four seasons? 5% of who follow them now? What a bunch of hypocrites.

Agreed, 100%.

TimV

Hang a sock on the door

Kyle Rose

Dafatone
That being said, ditching a team for not winning is, obviously, lame.

And yet, neither I nor BearLover offered anything like "ditching [the] team". Your straw man is burning.

I didn't mean to point that at anyone.

There's another thing here that may be at play. Speaking for myself, I chose to go to Cornell over an other Ivy and two safety schools (yes, HYPster trolls, some of us were accepted to other Ivies) for several reasons, one of which was the sheer scope of what Cornell has to offer. This includes the "any study" part, but it also includes one of the largest offerings of varsity sports in the country. (Actually, I think it is the largest.)

It stands to reason that as Cornell students we are introduced to new sports and, during our time on the hill, become devotees of some of them. It's natural that even naive, facetimer students are attracted to the sports in which Cornell is highly competitive. But over time, especially in a sport like hockey for which Cornell fans pride themselves for being knowledgeable, many facetimers learn about the sport and themselves become fans.

So sure, our interest will wane when a team isn't doing well. But I think most of us probably came to Cornell interested in a much narrower range of sports than when we left it. (Apologies to non-alums.) And, particularly thanks to the Internet, we follow sports in this wider range at a much higher intensity than we would otherwise, even if our interest vacillates with the fortunes of the teams.

Are you daft, man? This is not Jack Parker, who hit the pinnacle of his career with BU's improbable OT win over Miami in 2009 and might have decided at 64, 65 to end on a high note. The teams were competitive since then but the off-ice issues the players created since then dimmed his luster and will make people wonder, did Parker jump, or was he pushed into retirement. Schafer has a lot of career left in him.

I'm more worried we'll have a poll in a couple years, when his kids are older and in college, "Why didn't Cornell do more to keep the best coach Cornell ever had post-Harkness?" Schafer might want to see what he can do at a different level.

(Yeah, I had trouble for a moment figuring out which way to vote for The Man Should Stay. Sometimes polls shouldn't use song titles.)

BearLover
Absolutely ridiculous overreaction to my last post. And it's not the disagreement that bothers me; it's the trite smartass "no one can possibly be this dumb, he must be a troll" comments that twelve-year-olds go around posting on the internet.

I never said at any point I wouldn't follow the team if they were bad. I said I wouldn't follow them as much, and I wouldn't commit as much to them.
Are you honestly telling me that you'd go to exactly as many games and post on this forum exactly as much and sit through exactly as many Redcast broadcasts if Cornell were .400 instead of .650? Do you honestly think nearly as many people would pack Lynah in the first place if Cornell hadn't won so much in the past? You're delusional if you think so. I'm not travelling 8 hours to watch a shitty team play, I'll tell you that much, and I doubt there are many here who would. I'm never going to stop following Cornell hockey, but I am sure as hell not putting in as much effort as when they are actually good.

Who here followed women's hockey until they got good these past four seasons? 5% of who follow them now? What a bunch of hypocrites.

Well, the person who most questioned/criticized your post (Trotsky) is probably in the category of people whose devotion to Cornell hockey is unchanged with record. And he has the track record to prove it (years of traveling to every game post graduation even when he lived six or more hours away). So no hypocrisy there.

Personally I find that I do read this forum just as obsessively when the team is doing poorly as when doing well. What sometimes lessens my enthusiam for eLynah is when the forum devolves into overwhelming negarivity. That's less fun to read thatn watching an abyssmal hockey team play.

KeithK
Personally I find that I do read this forum just as obsessively when the team is doing poorly as when doing well. What sometimes lessens my enthusiam for eLynah is when the forum devolves into overwhelming negarivity. That's less fun to read that watching an abyssmal hockey team play.

Said much better (no surprise) and more tactfully (even less of a surprise) than I did.

210 days until the UNO game.

BearLover
Absolutely ridiculous overreaction to my last post. And it's not the disagreement that bothers me; it's the trite smartass "no one can possibly be this dumb, he must be a troll" comments that twelve-year-olds go around posting on the internet.

I never said at any point I wouldn't follow the team if they were bad. I said I wouldn't follow them as much, and I wouldn't commit as much to them.
Are you honestly telling me that you'd go to exactly as many games and post on this forum exactly as much and sit through exactly as many Redcast broadcasts if Cornell were .400 instead of .650? Do you honestly think nearly as many people would pack Lynah in the first place if Cornell hadn't won so much in the past? You're delusional if you think so. I'm not travelling 8 hours to watch a shitty team play, I'll tell you that much, and I doubt there are many here who would. I'm never going to stop following Cornell hockey, but I am sure as hell not putting in as much effort as when they are actually good.

Who here followed women's hockey until they got good these past four seasons? 5% of who follow them now? What a bunch of hypocrites.

I, for one, don't think all of it was an overreaction, my post for example. What got me going was your use of entitled. I have to say that even I would do more when the program is successful, then when it's a failure. However, to me, to be a failure requires a major change. I don't consider any of Schafer's years to be enough of a failure to change my enthusiasm.

Saying entitled is a whole different thing. That, at least for me, raises fanhood to a whole different level. I think if you go back and reread your post without the section on being entitled, because you're a devoted fan, then you'll see that it takes on a whole new meaning. And for me, that new meaning is one that I can understand.

Sometimes a small change can have major implications.

I have a finite amount of sports enthusiasm/viewing time. Over the course of the year I follow the Yankees and Big Red Hockey and Lacrosse. In recent years I have started adding the Big Red Women to my hockey time.

How a team does over the course of a year effect the percentage of time I devote to it. If the Yankees are in the Series I spend less time rooting for our Hockey Team in the fall. If the hockey teams fare poorly I will spend more on the Hot Stove Season and start focusing on Lacrosse earlier and this year I shifted to the Womens Hockey team.

Call me a facetimer if you want but we all have choices about how much time and effort we are willing to invest in a particular team. Winning teams get more attention (seriously who follows Big Red Football) and teams and coaches that "play the game right" get more of my attention.

I started loosing interest in this years mens team somewhere in Jan. I watched more Womens games from that time on.

Well, the good news is you should have plenty of time to root for our Hockey Team in the fall!

Jordan 04
Well, the good news is you should have plenty of time to root for our Hockey Team in the fall!

I am sure I will be rooting for both of them in Nov. Never count the Yankees and their checkbook out at the start of the season.

ugarte
WHY ARE SO MANY OF YOU SO WRONG ABOUT BASKETBALL!?

Basketball and hockey are not mutually exclusive. It isn't like being a fan of both hockey and watching children drown in insufficiently frozen lakes.

I don't think anyone said they're mutually exclusive. I can't speak for everyone, of course, but I never said "I like hockey, and therefore I dislike basketball." I dislike basketball because I find it not to be entertaining, independently of finding hockey to be awesome.

Josh '99

ugarte
WHY ARE SO MANY OF YOU SO WRONG ABOUT BASKETBALL!?

Basketball and hockey are not mutually exclusive. It isn't like being a fan of both hockey and watching children drown in insufficiently frozen lakes.

I don't think anyone said they're mutually exclusive. I can't speak for everyone, of course, but I never said "I like hockey, and therefore I dislike basketball." I dislike basketball because I find it not to be entertaining, independently of finding hockey to be awesome.

Exactly. Now the only question is where will ugarte find media sources with any basketball coverage?

RichH

Josh '99

ugarte
WHY ARE SO MANY OF YOU SO WRONG ABOUT BASKETBALL!?

Basketball and hockey are not mutually exclusive. It isn't like being a fan of both hockey and watching children drown in insufficiently frozen lakes.

I don't think anyone said they're mutually exclusive. I can't speak for everyone, of course, but I never said "I like hockey, and therefore I dislike basketball." I dislike basketball because I find it not to be entertaining, independently of finding hockey to be awesome.

Exactly. Now the only question is where will ugarte find media sources with any basketball coverage?

This is the crux of my issue, really. Some of you seem to dislike basketball at least in part because it is popular. It oozes from the tone - "squeakball" and such.

And yet you probably complain about hipsters, too.

ugarte

RichH

Josh '99

ugarte
WHY ARE SO MANY OF YOU SO WRONG ABOUT BASKETBALL!?

Basketball and hockey are not mutually exclusive. It isn't like being a fan of both hockey and watching children drown in insufficiently frozen lakes.

I don't think anyone said they're mutually exclusive. I can't speak for everyone, of course, but I never said "I like hockey, and therefore I dislike basketball." I dislike basketball because I find it not to be entertaining, independently of finding hockey to be awesome.

Exactly. Now the only question is where will ugarte find media sources with any basketball coverage?

This is the crux of my issue, really. Some of you seem to dislike basketball at least in part because it is popular. It oozes from the tone - "squeakball" and such.

And yet you probably complain about hipsters, too.

On your first, point...you'll just have to trust me. I like football, but am not offput by coverage or hype (excepting combine/draft nonsense).

On your second point, no. I complain about the hipster bashers.

I bashed hipster bashers before it was cool...

ugarte

RichH

Josh '99

ugarte
WHY ARE SO MANY OF YOU SO WRONG ABOUT BASKETBALL!?

Basketball and hockey are not mutually exclusive. It isn't like being a fan of both hockey and watching children drown in insufficiently frozen lakes.

I don't think anyone said they're mutually exclusive. I can't speak for everyone, of course, but I never said "I like hockey, and therefore I dislike basketball." I dislike basketball because I find it not to be entertaining, independently of finding hockey to be awesome.

Exactly. Now the only question is where will ugarte find media sources with any basketball coverage?

This is the crux of my issue, really. Some of you seem to dislike basketball at least in part because it is popular. It oozes from the tone - "squeakball" and such.

And yet you probably complain about hipsters, too.

I'll watch basketball, it's hard to be in Syracuse and not see some, but it doesn't carry the same interest to me. It's mostly because, unless you're really into the specifics (such as watching SU's zone destroy Indiana) you don't have to pay attention to most of the game. Either one team runs away, in which case I lose interest, as it becomes a foul shooting contest, or it's close. If it's close you only need to watch, with itensity, the last few minutes.

I enjoy hockey more because every shift could produce a goal that could be extremely important to the outcome. Therefore, I'm much more into the game. If one team is behind at the end, they pull their goalie, which is exciting. At the end there's no such thing as fouling your way to a victory.

I watch basketball, but not with the same intensity. I like having it on as background while I'm doing something else. I do the same with baseball.

Jim Hyla
I watch basketball, but not with the same intensity. I like having it on as background while I'm doing something else. I do the same with baseball.

This is a little off-topic. Of course some people like some things more than other things. There is an undercurrent of "hating basketball" that runs through a lot of "liking hockey" and that's what I'm getting at. I'm not going to openly question any individual's sincerity when they say that the two are independent decisions but I will remain suspicious that you have sufficiently probed your own mind.

ugarte

Jim Hyla
I watch basketball, but not with the same intensity. I like having it on as background while I'm doing something else. I do the same with baseball.

This is a little off-topic. Of course some people like some things more than other things. There is an undercurrent of "hating basketball" that runs through a lot of "liking hockey" and that's what I'm getting at. I'm not going to openly question any individual's sincerity when they say that the two are independent decisions but I will remain suspicious that you have sufficiently probed your own mind.

Trust me, living in Syracuse, I've seen and thought a lot about basketball.

ugarte
There is an undercurrent of "hating basketball" that runs through a lot of "liking hockey" and that's what I'm getting at.

I think many of us have zero interest, negative or otherwise, in basketball, but do hate the ubiquitous and blaring ESPN-esque coverage of it. See also: rooting against the US Summer Olympic team. Nobody on the planet actually cares about beach volleyball, but it's very easy to want NBC to eat pavement.

Jim Hyla

ugarte

Jim Hyla
I watch basketball, but not with the same intensity. I like having it on as background while I'm doing something else. I do the same with baseball.

This is a little off-topic. Of course some people like some things more than other things. There is an undercurrent of "hating basketball" that runs through a lot of "liking hockey" and that's what I'm getting at. I'm not going to openly question any individual's sincerity when they say that the two are independent decisions but I will remain suspicious that you have sufficiently probed your own mind.

Trust me, living in Syracuse, I've seen and thought a lot about basketball.

I DON'T MEAN YOU! You just said that you don't dislike basketball! That's why I said your point was off-topic (as defined by my original comment).

Trotsky

ugarte
There is an undercurrent of "hating basketball" that runs through a lot of "liking hockey" and that's what I'm getting at.

I think many of us have zero interest, negative or otherwise, in basketball, but do hate the ubiquitous and blaring ESPN-esque coverage of it. See also: rooting against the US Summer Olympic team. Nobody on the planet actually cares about beach volleyball, but it's very easy to want NBC to eat pavement.

I could not disagree with you more. It is a fun sport to watch and the game is entertaining as well. Yes, men like to look at women in bikinis. However, because the female athletes wear bikinis girls who watch the sport actually get to see what fit women's bodies look like as opposed to the anorexic waifs they are bombarded with in the media. My wife and daughters have remarked on this a number of times.

ugarte

Jim Hyla
I watch basketball, but not with the same intensity. I like having it on as background while I'm doing something else. I do the same with baseball.

This is a little off-topic. Of course some people like some things more than other things. There is an undercurrent of "hating basketball" that runs through a lot of "liking hockey" and that's what I'm getting at. I'm not going to openly question any individual's sincerity when they say that the two are independent decisions but I will remain suspicious that you have sufficiently probed your own mind.

Guilty as charged. I don't like basketball on the merits for some of the same reasons that Jim mentions. I watched plenty of it in college when I had toommates who were diehard fans and never could get into it. But I am also annoyed by the tremendous amount of hype and coverage that the sport gets. Being something of a contrarian this makes me dislike basketball more.

I think there is definitely a culture of dislike for basketball among hockey fans (or at least college hockey). The two sports are direct competitors for eyeballs since their seasnns overlap almost completely. The tremendous amount of coverage for the NCAA tournament can be frustrating to a hockey fan who sees the relative lack of coverage for the hockey tournament (still apparent and we're now in the golden age of college hockey coverage). I know I picked up the squeakball reference from HOCKEY-L back in the day.

Towerroad

Trotsky

ugarte
There is an undercurrent of "hating basketball" that runs through a lot of "liking hockey" and that's what I'm getting at.

I think many of us have zero interest, negative or otherwise, in basketball, but do hate the ubiquitous and blaring ESPN-esque coverage of it. See also: rooting against the US Summer Olympic team. Nobody on the planet actually cares about beach volleyball, but it's very easy to want NBC to eat pavement.

I could not disagree with you more. It is a fun sport to watch and the game is entertaining as well. Yes, men like to look at women in bikinis. However, because the female athletes wear bikinis girls who watch the sport actually get to see what fit women's bodies look like as opposed to the anorexic waifs they are bombarded with in the media. My wife and daughters have remarked on this a number of times.

We'll agree to disagree. I think the women who play beach volleyball look like arachnids. That isn't fit, it's neurotic.

Trotsky

Towerroad
I could not disagree with you more. It is a fun sport to watch and the game is entertaining as well. Yes, men like to look at women in bikinis. However, because the female athletes wear bikinis girls who watch the sport actually get to see what fit women's bodies look like as opposed to the anorexic waifs they are bombarded with in the media. My wife and daughters have remarked on this a number of times.

We'll agree to disagree. I think the women who play beach volleyball look like arachnids. That isn't fit, it's neurotic.

You lost me at "fun sport to watch." All fast-twitch; no strategy.

ugarte

Jim Hyla

ugarte

Jim Hyla
I watch basketball, but not with the same intensity. I like having it on as background while I'm doing something else. I do the same with baseball.

This is a little off-topic. Of course some people like some things more than other things. There is an undercurrent of "hating basketball" that runs through a lot of "liking hockey" and that's what I'm getting at. I'm not going to openly question any individual's sincerity when they say that the two are independent decisions but I will remain suspicious that you have sufficiently probed your own mind.

Trust me, living in Syracuse, I've seen and thought a lot about basketball.

I DON'T MEAN YOU! You just said that you don't dislike basketball! That's why I said your point was off-topic (as defined by my original comment).

Well, sorry. But I didn't say I didn't dislike basketball. I said I watch it as background. So sorry I didn't understand that I was off-topic and that the whole rest of your comment was meant for someone else. I figured since you were quoting me, you meant me with this.

I will remain suspicious that you have sufficiently probed your own mind.

ugarte

TimV
What? You don't watch Big Bang Theory???

Hang a sock on the door

sanc.ti.mo.ni.ous

saNG(k)te'mone ess

Adjective

Derogatory. Making a show of being morally or ethically superior to other people

Clearly you didn't understand the intent of this:

Try this one:

Swampy
It stands to reason that as Cornell students we are introduced to new sports and, during our time on the hill, become devotees of some of them. It's natural that even naive, facetimer students are attracted to the sports in which Cornell is highly competitive. But over time, especially in a sport like hockey for which Cornell fans pride themselves for being knowledgeable, many facetimers learn about the sport and themselves become fans.

That's me. I didn't know a thing about hockey before I came to Cornell, other than that it was violent. I watched my first game entirely because it was the cool thing to do, and I fell in love with the game within about 30 seconds. Fast forward to today, I play 2-3 times a week.

TimV
Clearly you didn't understand the intent of this:

unpronounceable
emoticon

Puerile, an attempt to achieve ironic distance

usage: "I am telling a sexist joke that I know to be sexist and trying to distance myself from it, unsuccessfully, because I am accidentally revealing something true about myself."

ugarte

TimV
Clearly you didn't understand the intent of this:

unpronounceable
emoticon

Puerile, an attempt to achieve ironic distance

usage: "I am telling a sexist joke that I know to be sexist and trying to distance myself from it, unsuccessfully, because I am accidentally revealing something true about myself."

This whole exchange confuses me. As far as I can tell, it went something like this:

1. one of RPI's disadvantages as far as recruiting is a high male/female ratio
2. actually, we should be looking at the male/attractive female ratio (presumably because hockey players (as most men) would prefer being with an attractive female over being with an unattractive one, ceteris paribus)
3. attractiveness is not a relevant quality for male engineers in this century
4. Big Bang Theory (despite its relative lack of classically attractive male engineers) is somehow a counter-argument to this; also, we should all wank off to it and/or it's a wank of a show
5. we don't want to hear about you wanking off to Big Bang Theory
6. stop being holier-than-thou
7. stop being sexist (presumably, against male engineers)

This makes very, very little sense to me; far less sense, for example, than firing a coach following a bad season, which over 91% of the the participants in this thread don't think makes sense. So, what have I misread?

You're right ftyuv. I apologize to all who took the time to read this drivel. I thought it was harmless. Ugarte felt like he had to call me on it. If I didn't post it , none of this nonsense would have followed. If Ugarte hadn't gone all Gloria Steinem, I'd still be thinking he was an occasionaly humorous guy who didn't take himself too seriously.

TimV
If Ugarte hadn't gone all Gloria Steinem, I'd still be thinking he was an occasionaly humorous guy who didn't take himself too seriously.

I can live with these results.

KeithK
.....But I am also annoyed by the tremendous amount of hype and coverage that the sport gets. Being something of a contrarian this makes me dislike basketball more.......

That pretty much sums it up for me... Furthermore, CBS carries much of the "March Sadness"; preempting many of the TV shows that my wife & I prefer to watch. That adds to my hatred for NCAA squeakball. It cannot end soon enough for me.

I don't live in Syracuse. But, I live in upstate NY and cannot get away from Syracuse basketball. That only makes it all worse. I cannot imagine the pain that Jim must be feeling each year at this time.

The only consolation these days, as opposed to the early days of my CU Hockey fandom (mid-1960's), we now have reaasonal coverage of the NCAA hockey tournament. In the 60's & 70's, it was difficult to even find out who won the damned tournament. Even the Ithaca Joural shut down their college hockey coverage when Cornell stopped playing. It was disgraceful and very frustrating. Thank God for the internet!!

redice
Furthermore, CBS carries much of the "March Sadness"; preempting many of the TV shows that my wife & I prefer to watch.

Noooo, not the Chuck Lorre sitcoms and the procedural crime dramas!

redice

KeithK
.....But I am also annoyed by the tremendous amount of hype and coverage that the sport gets. Being something of a contrarian this makes me dislike basketball more.......

That pretty much sums it up for me... Furthermore, CBS carries much of the "March Sadness"; preempting many of the TV shows that my wife & I prefer to watch. That adds to my hatred for NCAA squeakball. It cannot end soon enough for me.

I don't live in Syracuse. But, I live in upstate NY and cannot get away from Syracuse basketball. That only makes it all worse. I cannot imagine the pain that Jim must be feeling each year at this time.

The only consolation these days, as opposed to the early days of my CU Hockey fandom (mid-1960's), we now have reaasonal coverage of the NCAA hockey tournament. In the 60's & 70's, it was difficult to even find out who won the damned tournament. Even the Ithaca Joural shut down their college hockey coverage when Cornell stopped playing. It was disgraceful and very frustrating. Thank God for the internet!!

That's why there was "The Intercollegiate HockeyNewsletter". Thank you Don T. Birkmayer, even if you produced it in Troy. He lives in Ithaca now.

Jim Hyla
That's why there was "The Intercollegiate HockeyNewsletter". Thank you Don T. Birkmayer, even if you produced it in Troy. He lives in Ithaca now.

The IHNL was the inspiration for TBRW. I loved that old photocopied rag and wish I had a complete set from all 33 (?) years.

redice
The only consolation these days, as opposed to the early days of my CU Hockey fandom (mid-1960's), we now have reaasonal coverage of the NCAA hockey tournament. In the 60's & 70's, it was difficult to even find out who won the damned tournament.

An exception to this was the Boston Globe, who did yeoman's work covering college hockey. If the Globe ever put their archives fully online and searchable all of the missing data from the early years would be available (although, on the other hand, all of my free time would be lost for a decade).

One of the funniest parts of Globe coverage was that the order that results came in, by edition, was: (1) Boston area, (2) east and CCHA, (3) WCHA and club hockey teams from Singapore, (4) the North Country. Like postal route maps from the 19th century, Clarkson and SLU were surrounded by several concentric isobars and pushed them into Transylvania as far as game results.

Trotsky

redice
The only consolation these days, as opposed to the early days of my CU Hockey fandom (mid-1960's), we now have reaasonal coverage of the NCAA hockey tournament. In the 60's & 70's, it was difficult to even find out who won the damned tournament.

An exception to this was the Boston Globe, who did yeoman's work covering college hockey. If the Globe ever put their archives fully online and searchable all of the missing data from the early years would be available (although, on the other hand, all of my free time would be lost for a decade).

One of the funniest parts of Globe coverage was that the order that results came in, by edition, was: (1) Boston area, (2) east and CCHA, (3) WCHA and club hockey teams from Singapore, (4) the North Country. Like postal route maps from the 19th century, Clarkson and SLU were surrounded by several concentric isobars and pushed them into Transylvania as far as game results.

Yeah, I used to love reading The Globe when in Boston for the ECAC's..... But, living in small-town America, many newspapers (such as The Globe) were really hard to find here. The local paper didn't even know how to spell the word "hockey" until professional hockey moved into town 10-12 years ago. 30 miles from Ithaca and Cornell Hockey was rarely mentioned......

I did subscribe to "The Intercollegiate HockeyNewsletter" for a while... I think I "discovered" it at the end of its run. I didn't realize it was around for 33 years. Wow!!

Thanks for giving me a pass on my "reaasonal coverage" typo..... I just noticed it.... How many ways could I butcher the word "reasonable"?

Trotsky

Jim Hyla
That's why there was "The Intercollegiate HockeyNewsletter". Thank you Don T. Birkmayer, even if you produced it in Troy. He lives in Ithaca now.

The IHNL was the inspiration for TBRW. I loved that old photocopied rag and wish I had a complete set from all 33 (?) years.

1953-93 although Mr. Birkmayer didn't run it the last few years. I have a pretty complete set from late 60s on. They are also at the libraries of RPI and interestingly, UNH. I don't know anywhere else.

BearLover
Absolutely ridiculous overreaction to my last post. And it's not the disagreement that bothers me; it's the trite smartass "no one can possibly be this dumb, he must be a troll" comments that twelve-year-olds go around posting on the internet.

I never said at any point I wouldn't follow the team if they were bad. I said I wouldn't follow them as much, and I wouldn't commit as much to them.
Are you honestly telling me that you'd go to exactly as many games and post on this forum exactly as much and sit through exactly as many Redcast broadcasts if Cornell were .400 instead of .650? Do you honestly think nearly as many people would pack Lynah in the first place if Cornell hadn't won so much in the past? You're delusional if you think so. I'm not travelling 8 hours to watch a shitty team play, I'll tell you that much, and I doubt there are many here who would. I'm never going to stop following Cornell hockey, but I am sure as hell not putting in as much effort as when they are actually good.

Who here followed women's hockey until they got good these past four seasons? 5% of who follow them now? What a bunch of hypocrites.

I've had season tickets since 1988, and when I was living in Ithaca, I attended every game I was physically able to attend - home and away - including the 1992-93 and 1993-94 horrorshow seasons. I still renew my season tickets every year despite living in New York City since 2000, and I attend when I can, though it has gotten increasingly difficult. But that doesn't really answer the question you're asking, which is whether all people behave the way I behave or the way I think they "should" behave, and the answer to that is obviously "no." There have been stretches in Cornell hockey history when there were pretty significant holes in the stands, and I'm not at all surprised that fewer people attend when the team isn't as good - but I absolutely stand by my opinion that those who failed to show up weren't really "Cornell hockey" fans, they were just "Cornell hockey winning" fans. And I absolutely stand by my opinion that one of those types of fan is better than the other.

Also, I was doing radio color commentary for the women's hockey team at a time when adding a color commentator was often the difference in having a minyan in the building.

Maybe I'm just not as efficient as you are when it comes to investing my sports fandom hours, or something.

Or maybe I just know that sticking with something I care about through tough times will make the triumphs all the more sweet for having reached them.

Viewing the abuse being heaped on Our Fair Conference on the USCHO threads, perhaps we should all make peace and present a united front.

We are all Lynah Faithful. Those of us who stress the positives are not mindless cheerleaders, and those of us who stress the negatives are not facetimers or trolls. There are, in the grand scheme of things, precious few of us, and we cannot afford internal purges over who is the better fan.

+++ I agree.

Trotsky
Viewing the abuse being heaped on Our Fair Conference on the USCHO threads, perhaps we should all make peace and present a united front.

We are all Lynah Faithful. Those of us who stress the positives are not mindless cheerleaders, and those of us who stress the negatives are not facetimers or trolls. There are, in the grand scheme of things, precious few of us, and we cannot afford internal purges over who is the better fan.

LGR!