Should He Stay or Should He Go 2014

Poll

Should the Coach Stay Or Go

Only registered users are allowed to vote for this poll.
123 votes were received.

Stay	96		78%
Go	9		7%
Unsure	18		15%

---

At the end of the day the Coach is responsible for the team and its performance. Does the performance justify continuation?

Thanks, for doing this poll. Some of the silent majority may come out.

It would be interesting if there was a poll like this one after each season to see how the results have changed over time.

Jim Hyla
Thanks, for doing this poll. Some of the silent majority may come out.

The Dump Schafer crowd is neither.

Trotsky

Jim Hyla
Thanks, for doing this poll. Some of the silent majority may come out.

The Dump Schafer crowd is neither.

I think I agree with you. I thought there might be a "silent majority" to keep.

It's rather biased to host this poll here. A more accurate barometer would be the amount of attention that the sport gets during the season - I would measure that with a mix of attendance, news coverage, total dollars spent by fans on tickets/gear/away games travel. If I had to guess on this barometer, people still want Schafer around, but it's been on the decline for the past few years.

MattS
It would be interesting if there was a poll like this one after each season to see how the results have changed over time.

I did this poll last year (almost exactly a year ago). The result then was 93% Stay, 7% Go

I think there is more doubt this year but I did not include an Unsure category last year. For the record I am in the Unsure camp.

ajh258
It's rather biased to host this poll here. A more accurate barometer would be the amount of attention that the sport gets during the season - I would measure that with a mix of attendance, news coverage, total dollars spent by fans on tickets/gear/away games travel. If I had to guess on this barometer, people still want Schafer around, but it's been on the decline for the past few years.

I think this is pretty accurate. Of the people who sit near me at Lynah, I think that most are supportive of Schafer but not to the point of having tunnel vision and believing he is the next coming. However, there are the extremes. They guy who sits next to me would fire Schafer in a heartbeat if he was in charge. Then on the other end of the spectrum there is a older alumni couple that sit a couple of rows behind me who think Schafer can do no wrong.

I am personally unsure. 3-4 years ago I was a ardent supporter of Schafer. Today I not so much of one. The main reason I say keep him around is that I don't think there is anyone that Cornell can realistically get to come to Ithaca that I can say with reasonable certainty would be an upgrade.

My three complaints are that I believe Schafer's offensive system (if there even is one) comes from some type of peewee league, the PP scheme is even worse, and finally the his apparent refusal to change and/or adapt his offensive beliefs.

If you can think of a viable, available replacement I'm all ears but ... I don't think anyone has that in mind. I'll stick with the devil I know can be successful.

I said "unsure", mainly because that was the closest option of the three to how I actually feel. If it wasn't obvious from the other thread, I think Schafer is doing a (mostly) bang-up job on defense, and a lousy job on offense. I would be satisfied if he brought in a talented assistant to take control of the offense, because the last 10 years have made it abundantly clear that he's got no idea how to coach it himself.

A man's got to know his limitations.

Kyle Rose
If it wasn't obvious from the other thread, I think Schafer is doing a (mostly) bang-up job on defense, and a lousy job on offense. I would be satisfied if he brought in a talented assistant to take control of the offense, because the last 10 years have made it abundantly clear that he's got no idea how to coach it himself.

A man's got to know his limitations.

+1

Schafer's teams have always been built from the goal out and I don't expect that will change during his tenure. He looks for defensibly responsible recruits and defensibly responsible recruits look for him. There have probably been a few offensively-oriented players with the grades to get into Cornell who have gone elsewhere because of Schafer, but I would bet there have been far more defensively-oriented players who have chosen Cornell because of Schafer. As a recruiting differentiator, he is a net positive.

That's what you get with Schafer. Since you can't just will an offensive juggernaut into existence, I think the burden is on the Go crowd to put up somebody who is available and has a track record of coaching successful teams, and can (and would like) to operate under Ivy restrictions. Otherwise it's just throwing stuff against the wall and praying.

MattS

Kyle Rose
If it wasn't obvious from the other thread, I think Schafer is doing a (mostly) bang-up job on defense, and a lousy job on offense. I would be satisfied if he brought in a talented assistant to take control of the offense, because the last 10 years have made it abundantly clear that he's got no idea how to coach it himself.

A man's got to know his limitations.

+1

I feel pretty much the same way. If you look at team stats over the last 4 years our defense is solid rating somewhere between 11th and 27th in goals per game (out of 59). Our offense on the other hand 42nd and 24th. We are also not too good at staying out of the box running between first and 24th and our PK is really not that strong at 18th to more than 40th. We have a team with solid defense that can't stay out of the box and cant score. That is not a record that gets you to the NCAA tournament except by luck. It is what it is.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

Trotsky
That's what you get with Schafer. Since you can't just will an offensive juggernaut into existence,

You don't need a juggernaut. When you have a top-quarter defense, all you need is a competent (read: average to good) offense with a plan to win games. We don't even have that.

Anyone like to set up a similar poll for men's basketball?

Kyle Rose

Trotsky
That's what you get with Schafer. Since you can't just will an offensive juggernaut into existence,

You don't need a juggernaut. When you have a top-quarter defense, all you need is a competent (read: average to good) offense with a plan to win games. We don't even have that.

No argument, at least for the last two years. We averaged 2.7 goals in Ivy games and 2.0 in all other games, and we were 8-1-1 in the Ivies and 9-9-4 in the others.

Kyle Rose
I said "unsure", mainly because that was the closest option of the three to how I actually feel. If it wasn't obvious from the other thread, I think Schafer is doing a (mostly) bang-up job on defense, and a lousy job on offense. I would be satisfied if he brought in a talented assistant to take control of the offense, because the last 10 years have made it abundantly clear that he's got no idea how to coach it himself.

A man's got to know his limitations.

I too would like to see more emphasis (ideally through the assistant coaches) on the offense. Since we are not going to get a pure goal scorer to come to Cornell, we do need to work a couple of different schemes to get quality shots. It looked like we had some good stretches of cycling the puck in the zone v. Union, but we have to end shifts like that with a goal, or at least a high quality shot. We don't finish. Fortunately, I like defensive hockey and believe you build your team from the net out. But scoring 2.27 goals/game doesn't give us any margins for error as this season illustrated.

Trotsky

Kyle Rose

Trotsky
That's what you get with Schafer. Since you can't just will an offensive juggernaut into existence,

You don't need a juggernaut. When you have a top-quarter defense, all you need is a competent (read: average to good) offense with a plan to win games. We don't even have that.

No argument, at least for the last two years. We averaged 2.7 goals in Ivy games and 2.0 in all other games, and we were 8-1-1 in the Ivies and 9-9-4 in the others.

Are you satisfied with that? You can make the case that as long as we are beating Sucks and staying on top of the IVY's that is good enough.

Trotsky

Kyle Rose

Trotsky
That's what you get with Schafer. Since you can't just will an offensive juggernaut into existence,

You don't need a juggernaut. When you have a top-quarter defense, all you need is a competent (read: average to good) offense with a plan to win games. We don't even have that.

No argument, at least for the last two years. We averaged 2.7 goals in Ivy games and 2.0 in all other games, and we were 8-1-1 in the Ivies and 9-9-4 in the others.

Which just shows how bad the Ivies are, and I contend there is a structural Ivy defect. I'm not sure what it's all do to, but you just have to look at how much better the rest of the league seems to be doing, compared to the Ivy teams.

Kyle Rose
I said "unsure", mainly because that was the closest option of the three to how I actually feel. If it wasn't obvious from the other thread, I think Schafer is doing a (mostly) bang-up job on defense, and a lousy job on offense. I would be satisfied if he brought in a talented assistant to take control of the offense, because the last 10 years have made it abundantly clear that he's got no idea how to coach it himself.

A man's got to know his limitations.

I had really hoped that Casey was up to this and Topher too. (Auntie Em!) But it was very frustrating especially vs. Union and RPI - the games I saw live.

A few years ago we couldn't get the puck into the opponents zone. Now we can and the teams that defend well against us are doing a Cornell on us. They are set up to limit our chances in their zone and it sucks.

Towerroad

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

But here's the thing: over the course of Schafer's coaching career, he does the same thing over and over and DOES get different results. Cornell has had top-10 PP and Best-in-the-nation PK units, and more than half the time, he has dominant defensive squads. There was the year (2001) where Cornell allowed 2.00 GPG and scored 2.00 GPG (44 GF, 44 GA), and the same questions were being asked. In 2002, they led the ECAC with 74 GF and dropped the GA to 34. Over the next 5 years, his teams were two-way beasts.

We all know that he's a "system" coach who finds and molds players to fit his style. When he has the right pieces, the results can be impressive on a national stage. We've had recruiting shifts in recent years, as assistants move through.

You want that mystical "sniper" who is just left free to score tons of goals on his own talent? Hope you take a look at RPI and SLU's performances. Great, historic programs that had guys throw up big numbers, but the teams had no success. Cornell was one win from taking an at-large bid.

Towerroad

Trotsky

Kyle Rose

Trotsky
That's what you get with Schafer. Since you can't just will an offensive juggernaut into existence,

You don't need a juggernaut. When you have a top-quarter defense, all you need is a competent (read: average to good) offense with a plan to win games. We don't even have that.

No argument, at least for the last two years. We averaged 2.7 goals in Ivy games and 2.0 in all other games, and we were 8-1-1 in the Ivies and 9-9-4 in the others.

Are you satisfied with that? You can make the case that as long as we are beating Sucks and staying on top of the IVY's that is good enough.

"Good enough" to me means that in most years we are good enough to get a bye, reach the conference final four, and make the NCAAs. In 19 seasons Schafer has accomplished those things 14, 14, and 9 times, respectively. Overall, that is "good enough" -- in the sense that I would hold onto that as a bird in the hand rather than risk a new coaching staff and system and the possibility of catastrophic failure. Obviously I wouldn't turn down better -- I'd enjoy a decade of 2003s just fine thanks. If you know how to get us there, please do tell.

Trotsky

Towerroad

Trotsky

Kyle Rose

Trotsky
That's what you get with Schafer. Since you can't just will an offensive juggernaut into existence,

You don't need a juggernaut. When you have a top-quarter defense, all you need is a competent (read: average to good) offense with a plan to win games. We don't even have that.

No argument, at least for the last two years. We averaged 2.7 goals in Ivy games and 2.0 in all other games, and we were 8-1-1 in the Ivies and 9-9-4 in the others.

Are you satisfied with that? You can make the case that as long as we are beating Sucks and staying on top of the IVY's that is good enough.

"Good enough" to me means that in most years we are good enough to get a bye, reach the conference final four, and make the NCAAs. In 19 seasons Schafer has accomplished those things 14, 14, and 9 times, respectively. Overall, that is "good enough" -- in the sense that I would hold onto that as a bird in the hand rather than risk a new coaching staff and system and the possibility of catastrophic failure. Obviously I wouldn't turn down better -- I'd enjoy a decade of 2003s just fine thanks. If you know how to get us there, please do tell.

I am afraid that I come from the "What have you done for me lately school."In the last 8 years (which is 2 complete recruiting cycles) we have not won the Regular ECAC Season, Won the League Tournament once, and been in the NCAA's 3 times). Mike Schafer caught lighting in a bottle from 2001 to 2006 but we have not been a team that is consistently in the top 15 since then.

As for what to do. Before you can do anything, you have to admit there is a problem. If I heard Coach Schafer say that we have a problem scoring and that we need to do something about it I would be in the Stay camp and would happily give him a change to right the ship. (Not that I have a say in the matter). I think the suggestion that he hire an offense coach and give him the mandate would be a start.

marty

Kyle Rose
I said "unsure", mainly because that was the closest option of the three to how I actually feel. If it wasn't obvious from the other thread, I think Schafer is doing a (mostly) bang-up job on defense, and a lousy job on offense. I would be satisfied if he brought in a talented assistant to take control of the offense, because the last 10 years have made it abundantly clear that he's got no idea how to coach it himself.

A man's got to know his limitations.

I had really hoped that Casey was up to this and Topher too. (Auntie Em!) But it was very frustrating especially vs. Union and RPI - the games I saw live.

A few years ago we couldn't get the puck into the opponents zone. Now we can and the teams that defend well against us are doing a Cornell on us. They are set up to limit our chances in their zone and it sucks.

When he first came I had really hoped for that as well. However Casey seems to be of a similar idea. Maybe once he really gets the team established, he'll increase his offense, but maybe he came back to Schafer because he wanted to learn the system better.

Speaking as a Defender of the Faith, I would not expect a coach of a different mindset to come from inside the program. The ideal candidate would be a D3 head coach who wants to move up or an assistant at another school, blocked by a successful young coach, who wants to come in as an "associate" and the heir apparent.

I don't know the leagues well enough to know who fits that profile, but the great thing about eLynah is there are about a dozen people on here who do.

Jim Hyla

Trotsky

Kyle Rose

Trotsky
That's what you get with Schafer. Since you can't just will an offensive juggernaut into existence,

You don't need a juggernaut. When you have a top-quarter defense, all you need is a competent (read: average to good) offense with a plan to win games. We don't even have that.

No argument, at least for the last two years. We averaged 2.7 goals in Ivy games and 2.0 in all other games, and we were 8-1-1 in the Ivies and 9-9-4 in the others.

Which just shows how bad the Ivies are, and I contend there is a structural Ivy defect. I'm not sure what it's all do to, but you just have to look at how much better the rest of the league seems to be doing, compared to the Ivy teams.

Said no one in New Haven lately.

There are pros and cons with the Ivies.

But let's not go too chicken little on it.

Frequency of ECAC playoff seeds 2006-present according to Greg's site:

#1 seed: non-ivy 6-3
#2: ivy 5-4
#3: ivy 7-2
#4: non 5-4
#5: non 6-3
#6: ivy 5-4
#1-6: 27 each.

So in terms of finishing in the top half of the league, it's a draw. The Ivies have a slight advantage in byes.

Yes, the Ivies were terrible this year, cleaning up 9-12 but with the exception of Brown, they've all been relevant quite recently. They've all had a bye at least once since '09 just like every non-Ivy except Clarkson. Cornell is also the only team in the league to not be 10th or below at all in that stretch.

And the I think expanding the game limit would be an enormous help the Ivy competitiveness top to bottom but I hesitate to conclude that the Ivies are tremendously bad.

Jim Hyla

marty

Kyle Rose
I said "unsure", mainly because that was the closest option of the three to how I actually feel. If it wasn't obvious from the other thread, I think Schafer is doing a (mostly) bang-up job on defense, and a lousy job on offense. I would be satisfied if he brought in a talented assistant to take control of the offense, because the last 10 years have made it abundantly clear that he's got no idea how to coach it himself.

A man's got to know his limitations.

I had really hoped that Casey was up to this and Topher too. (Auntie Em!) But it was very frustrating especially vs. Union and RPI - the games I saw live.

A few years ago we couldn't get the puck into the opponents zone. Now we can and the teams that defend well against us are doing a Cornell on us. They are set up to limit our chances in their zone and it sucks.

When he first came I had really hoped for that as well. However Casey seems to be of a similar idea. Maybe once he really gets the team established, he'll increase his offense, but maybe he came back to Schafer because he wanted to learn the system better.

The third game of the series in Ithaca proves your point.

Chris '03

Jim Hyla

Trotsky

Kyle Rose

Trotsky
That's what you get with Schafer. Since you can't just will an offensive juggernaut into existence,

You don't need a juggernaut. When you have a top-quarter defense, all you need is a competent (read: average to good) offense with a plan to win games. We don't even have that.

No argument, at least for the last two years. We averaged 2.7 goals in Ivy games and 2.0 in all other games, and we were 8-1-1 in the Ivies and 9-9-4 in the others.

Which just shows how bad the Ivies are, and I contend there is a structural Ivy defect. I'm not sure what it's all do to, but you just have to look at how much better the rest of the league seems to be doing, compared to the Ivy teams.

Said no one in New Haven lately.

There are pros and cons with the Ivies.

But let's not go too chicken little on it.

Frequency of ECAC playoff seeds 2006-present according to Greg's site:

#1 seed: non-ivy 6-3
#2: ivy 5-4
#3: ivy 7-2
#4: non 5-4
#5: non 6-3
#6: ivy 5-4
#1-6: 27 each.

So in terms of finishing in the top half of the league, it's a draw. The Ivies have a slight advantage in byes.

Yes, the Ivies were terrible this year, cleaning up 9-12 but with the exception of Brown, they've all been relevant quite recently. They've all had a bye at least once since '09 just like every non-Ivy except Clarkson. Cornell is also the only team in the league to not be 10th or below at all in that stretch.

And the I think expanding the game limit would be an enormous help the Ivy competitiveness top to bottom but I hesitate to conclude that the Ivies are tremendously bad.

Also consider what Harvard could do if they had a coach rather than just a great recruiter. (Nightmares are made of this.)

marty

Chris '03

Jim Hyla

Trotsky

Kyle Rose

Trotsky
That's what you get with Schafer. Since you can't just will an offensive juggernaut into existence,

You don't need a juggernaut. When you have a top-quarter defense, all you need is a competent (read: average to good) offense with a plan to win games. We don't even have that.

No argument, at least for the last two years. We averaged 2.7 goals in Ivy games and 2.0 in all other games, and we were 8-1-1 in the Ivies and 9-9-4 in the others.

Which just shows how bad the Ivies are, and I contend there is a structural Ivy defect. I'm not sure what it's all do to, but you just have to look at how much better the rest of the league seems to be doing, compared to the Ivy teams.

Said no one in New Haven lately.

There are pros and cons with the Ivies.

But let's not go too chicken little on it.

Frequency of ECAC playoff seeds 2006-present according to Greg's site:

#1 seed: non-ivy 6-3
#2: ivy 5-4
#3: ivy 7-2
#4: non 5-4
#5: non 6-3
#6: ivy 5-4
#1-6: 27 each.

So in terms of finishing in the top half of the league, it's a draw. The Ivies have a slight advantage in byes.

Yes, the Ivies were terrible this year, cleaning up 9-12 but with the exception of Brown, they've all been relevant quite recently. They've all had a bye at least once since '09 just like every non-Ivy except Clarkson. Cornell is also the only team in the league to not be 10th or below at all in that stretch.

And the I think expanding the game limit would be an enormous help the Ivy competitiveness top to bottom but I hesitate to conclude that the Ivies are tremendously bad.

Also consider what Harvard could do if they had a coach rather than just a great recruiter. (Nightmares are made of this.)

Chris '03

Jim Hyla

Trotsky

Kyle Rose

Trotsky
That's what you get with Schafer. Since you can't just will an offensive juggernaut into existence,

You don't need a juggernaut. When you have a top-quarter defense, all you need is a competent (read: average to good) offense with a plan to win games. We don't even have that.

No argument, at least for the last two years. We averaged 2.7 goals in Ivy games and 2.0 in all other games, and we were 8-1-1 in the Ivies and 9-9-4 in the others.

Which just shows how bad the Ivies are, and I contend there is a structural Ivy defect. I'm not sure what it's all do to, but you just have to look at how much better the rest of the league seems to be doing, compared to the Ivy teams.

Said no one in New Haven lately.

There are pros and cons with the Ivies.

But let's not go too chicken little on it.

Frequency of ECAC playoff seeds 2006-present according to Greg's site:

#1 seed: non-ivy 6-3
#2: ivy 5-4
#3: ivy 7-2
#4: non 5-4
#5: non 6-3
#6: ivy 5-4
#1-6: 27 each.

So in terms of finishing in the top half of the league, it's a draw. The Ivies have a slight advantage in byes.

Yes, the Ivies were terrible this year, cleaning up 9-12 but with the exception of Brown, they've all been relevant quite recently. They've all had a bye at least once since '09 just like every non-Ivy except Clarkson. Cornell is also the only team in the league to not be 10th or below at all in that stretch.

And the I think expanding the game limit would be an enormous help the Ivy competitiveness top to bottom but I hesitate to conclude that the Ivies are tremendously bad.

For the last 5 years it's non 17-13, 3 years 11-7, 2 years 8-4. So it looks like the Ivies had the early edge, it evened out and now the nons are ahead. Yes the stats are much too minor on which to base anything, but I don't like the trend. And if you throw out Yale and CU (combined for 9), over the last 5 years the rest of the Ivies have 4 spots. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think it's becoming harder and harder for the Ivies to compete.

I just wanna throw one thing out there that I've been thinking on this topic.

I think it's easy to assume that we're Cornell, we have a long history and a storied rink and whatnot, so we should be good.

That's not true. We're not special. There's no (or almost no, the history and rink help recruit but only somewhat, and as noted, the rink isn't what it used to be) inherent reason for us to be better than most teams in the ECAC.

I'm all for high expectations. My bar for a "successful" season is making the NCAAs, so this one comes up just short. But it's important to realize that there really isn't all that much keeping us from being bad. If we can do better than Schafer, cool. But I think there's a bit of an assumption that our floor is pretty high, season to season, because of how well we've done over the past couple decades, and that assumption isn't necessarily the case.

This is a joke, right?

I'm definitely ok with Mike staying. But, would welcome a new assistant if Mike would allow him to rev up the offense a bit. I also know that this is easier said than done. It is not done in a vacuum. Whatever a new (or existing assistant) does to improve the offensive side of CU's game has to be within the context of Schafer's defensive style...

It's a tough one. How much of much of the defensive side of the game can be sacrificed to improve the offense? That's above my pay grade. I will say this: We saw some wide open teams in the 1970's who were a lot of fun to watch. But, they didn't win a lot of championships. Do we want to return to that? My vote: Nope!!

redice
How much of much of the defensive side of the game can be sacrificed to improve the offense? That's above my pay grade. I will say this: We saw some wide open teams in the 1970's who were a lot of fun to watch. But, they didn't win a lot of championships. Do we want to return to that? My vote: Nope!!

I understand what you are saying and share your concerns. However, I do not believe that one must automatically sacrifice defense to improve offense. For example, no defensive prowess will be sacrificed by teaching the players on the PP to move the puck quickly and with authority. I firmly believe that a huge part of the PP being bad is because of the poor passing (slow puck movement). Fix this and I think that instantly helps the offense without sacrificing defense.

Dafatone
I just wanna throw one thing out there that I've been thinking on this topic.

I think it's easy to assume that we're Cornell, we have a long history and a storied rink and whatnot, so we should be good.

That's not true. We're not special. There's no (or almost no, the history and rink help recruit but only somewhat, and as noted, the rink isn't what it used to be) inherent reason for us to be better than most teams in the ECAC.

I'm all for high expectations. My bar for a "successful" season is making the NCAAs, so this one comes up just short. But it's important to realize that there really isn't all that much keeping us from being bad. If we can do better than Schafer, cool. But I think there's a bit of an assumption that our floor is pretty high, season to season, because of how well we've done over the past couple decades, and that assumption isn't necessarily the case.

Clarkson and Harvard have learned this lesson, painfully.

Schafer's record of championships is impressive, but his record of not having any prolonged downturns during his 19 seasons is even moreso. Put it this way: Schafer's teams have finished out of the bye 5 times in 19 years. Clarkson has finished out of the bye 6 times in the last 6 years.

MattS

redice
How much of much of the defensive side of the game can be sacrificed to improve the offense? That's above my pay grade. I will say this: We saw some wide open teams in the 1970's who were a lot of fun to watch. But, they didn't win a lot of championships. Do we want to return to that? My vote: Nope!!

I understand what you are saying and share your concerns. However, I do not believe that one must automatically sacrifice defense to improve offense. For example, no defensive prowess will be sacrificed by teaching the players on the PP to move the puck quickly and with authority. I firmly believe that a huge part of the PP being bad is because of the poor passing (slow puck movement). Fix this and I think that instantly helps the offense without sacrificing defense.

Cannot disagree a bit! The PP is badly broken. They do not seem to understand the basic concept that passes rarely score goals. It takes a shot on goal to score one! And, not all shots are perfect ones. The PP, of late, has morphed in that of the Brian McCutcheon era (i.e. horrible). The first & obvious thing that needs to be done is replace Reece Willcox with someone who will actually take a shot at the goal. Reece is a fine defenseman and a great asset to the team defense. But, when CU in on the PP, the intent is to SCORE goals. When Reece gets the puck, everyone in the bldg knows that he will not shoot the puck on goal. If we know it, you can bet the opposing players know it and will play accordingly by leaning to taking away his non-SOG opportunities. You simply cannot leave a one-dimensional player on the ice in such important situations. He has now completed half of his varsity career and not progressed much in the SOG department. Acknowledge that & keep him off the PP.

We have other young defensive who are good on the D side of things and excellent at jumping up into the play. They need to be moved up to the first defensive unit on the PP!!

I'm also hopeful that our new goalie, Mitch Gillam or a whomever will be one that is likely to move the puck up to the forwards himself during the PP. This concept of wasting time, sitting behind the CU goal for every CU player to get in their assigned place is working against the CU PP. I know most teams do it and it is considered the "right thing to do" but, I would ask why. If your PP already sucks, think outside the box!! If your goalie has a demonstrated ability to handle the puck (like Mitch) let him get after it!!!

Dafatone
I just wanna throw one thing out there that I've been thinking on this topic.

I think it's easy to assume that we're Cornell, we have a long history and a storied rink and whatnot, so we should be good.

That's not true. We're not special. There's no (or almost no, the history and rink help recruit but only somewhat, and as noted, the rink isn't what it used to be) inherent reason for us to be better than most teams in the ECAC.

I'm all for high expectations. My bar for a "successful" season is making the NCAAs, so this one comes up just short. But it's important to realize that there really isn't all that much keeping us from being bad. If we can do better than Schafer, cool. But I think there's a bit of an assumption that our floor is pretty high, season to season, because of how well we've done over the past couple decades, and that assumption isn't necessarily the case.

Actually I think there is a fair amount of "autoregression" in college sports. Schools that build a consistent record of being good at a particular sport tend to remain good at that. Sucks is good at Football (at least by Ivy Standards). We are good at Lax, Hockey, Wrestling and Polo. The reason why is that success over long periods of time builds a reputation that helps with recruiting and builds a loyal alumni base which helps with $.

redice

MattS

redice
How much of much of the defensive side of the game can be sacrificed to improve the offense? That's above my pay grade. I will say this: We saw some wide open teams in the 1970's who were a lot of fun to watch. But, they didn't win a lot of championships. Do we want to return to that? My vote: Nope!!

I understand what you are saying and share your concerns. However, I do not believe that one must automatically sacrifice defense to improve offense. For example, no defensive prowess will be sacrificed by teaching the players on the PP to move the puck quickly and with authority. I firmly believe that a huge part of the PP being bad is because of the poor passing (slow puck movement). Fix this and I think that instantly helps the offense without sacrificing defense.

Cannot disagree a bit! The PP is badly broken. They do not seem to understand the basic concept that passes rarely score goals. It takes a shot on goal to score one! And, not all shots are perfect ones. The PP, of late, has morphed in that of the Brian McCutcheon era (i.e. horrible). The first & obvious thing that needs to be done is replace Reece Willcox with someone who will actually take a shot at the goal. Reece is a fine defenseman and a great asset to the team defense. But, when CU in on the PP, the intent is to SCORE goals. When Reece gets the puck, everyone in the bldg knows that he will not shoot the puck on goal. If we know it, you can bet the opposing players know it and will play accordingly by leaning to taking away his non-SOG opportunities. You simply cannot leave a one-dimensional player on the ice in such important situations. He has now completed half of his varsity career and not progressed much in the SOG department. Acknowledge that & keep him off the PP.

We have other young defensive who are good on the D side of things and excellent at jumping up into the play. They need to be moved up to the first defensive unit on the PP!!

I'm also hopeful that our new goalie, Mitch Gillam or a whomever will be one that is likely to move the puck up to the forwards himself during the PP. This concept of wasting time, sitting behind the CU goal for every CU player to get in their assigned place is working against the CU PP. I know most teams do it and it is considered the "right thing to do" but, I would ask why. If your PP already sucks, think outside the box!! If your goalie has a demonstrated ability to handle the puck (like Mitch) let him get after it!!!

What's odd about the PP is that in the two games at UNO we moved the puck beautifully and got at least a couple of great back-door goals. Now maybe UNO was a bit weak defensively, but it sure looked like our PP was going to be much better this season. The big disappointment to me is how much the PP seemed to regress to the 2012-13 style after such a promising start.

redice

MattS

redice
How much of much of the defensive side of the game can be sacrificed to improve the offense? That's above my pay grade. I will say this: We saw some wide open teams in the 1970's who were a lot of fun to watch. But, they didn't win a lot of championships. Do we want to return to that? My vote: Nope!!

I understand what you are saying and share your concerns. However, I do not believe that one must automatically sacrifice defense to improve offense. For example, no defensive prowess will be sacrificed by teaching the players on the PP to move the puck quickly and with authority. I firmly believe that a huge part of the PP being bad is because of the poor passing (slow puck movement). Fix this and I think that instantly helps the offense without sacrificing defense.

Cannot disagree a bit! The PP is badly broken. They do not seem to understand the basic concept that passes rarely score goals. It takes a shot on goal to score one! And, not all shots are perfect ones. The PP, of late, has morphed in that of the Brian McCutcheon era (i.e. horrible). The first & obvious thing that needs to be done is replace Reece Willcox with someone who will actually take a shot at the goal. Reece is a fine defenseman and a great asset to the team defense. But, when CU in on the PP, the intent is to SCORE goals. When Reece gets the puck, everyone in the bldg knows that he will not shoot the puck on goal. If we know it, you can bet the opposing players know it and will play accordingly by leaning to taking away his non-SOG opportunities. You simply cannot leave a one-dimensional player on the ice in such important situations. He has now completed half of his varsity career and not progressed much in the SOG department. Acknowledge that & keep him off the PP.

We have other young defensive who are good on the D side of things and excellent at jumping up into the play. They need to be moved up to the first defensive unit on the PP!!

I'm also hopeful that our new goalie, Mitch Gillam or a whomever will be one that is likely to move the puck up to the forwards himself during the PP. This concept of wasting time, sitting behind the CU goal for every CU player to get in their assigned place is working against the CU PP. I know most teams do it and it is considered the "right thing to do" but, I would ask why. If your PP already sucks, think outside the box!! If your goalie has a demonstrated ability to handle the puck (like Mitch) let him get after it!!!

Do you sit next to me in Section M??? Your sentiments are exactly like the guy who sits next to me.

I completely agree with a lot of this. I have often wondered what the cumulative time is throughout a season that is wasted by waiting for the PP unit to get into "perfect" position before starting the rush up ice which usually ends up in dumping the puck anyway.

I am continually baffled by how Schafer can watch the game, then presumably watch the video of the games, and be satisfied with the PP. I can only assume he is satisfied as he has made, and continues to make, very few changes to an anemic PP.

The speed and crispness of the passing is a joke. Go watch the women's PP and they move the puck quicker and better than the men's PP and I'm not accounting for the difference in strength. The women are just plain out better at moving the puck on the PP.

I do not recall that last time CU had any type of real dominance in front of the net looking for the rebounds. And for whatever reason Schafer seems think that every single goalie that CU faces is the next coming of Dryden or Shawchuk or Roy! It is like he thinks and has taught the players to think that the only way a goalie can be beaten on the PP is by a screened shot through tons of opposing player traffic (not CU players), by the back door, or by a tip in. And never off the rebound or by simply a good solid shot. And while I am not a "shoot" yeller, sometimes you do just need to shoot the F'ing puck.

I will spare you all my rant on the dump and chase on the PP. Let's just say I am not a fan.

Trotsky

Clarkson and Harvard have learned this lesson, painfully.

Don't forget about RPI. The two you mentioned have at least won a championship in the past 10 years. RPI hasn't advanced to championship weekend since the league last moved out of LP.

Kyle Rose
I said "unsure", mainly because that was the closest option of the three to how I actually feel. If it wasn't obvious from the other thread, I think Schafer is doing a (mostly) bang-up job on defense, and a lousy job on offense. I would be satisfied if he brought in a talented assistant to take control of the offense, because the last 10 years have made it abundantly clear that he's got no idea how to coach it himself.

A man's got to know his limitations.

What's interesting about this interpretation of how/why the team performs as it does is that as far as I've understood it Schafer has always coached the offense, letting assistants coach the defense.

Trotsky
Schafer's record of championships is impressive, but his record of not having any prolonged downturns during his 19 seasons is even moreso. Put it this way: Schafer's teams have finished out of the bye 5 times in 19 years. Clarkson has finished out of the bye 6 times in the last 6 years.

Someone was talking about Schafer catching lightning in a bottle for the 5 year run from 2002 through 2006 (which, if you ask me, is a pretty long-lived lightning bolt), and pointing out that the last 8 years (2 full recruiting cycles!) haven't been so hot by Cornell's standards. Of course, this conveniently ignores that 2009-2012 was pretty good by any sane and reasonable standard, and was also less than 1 recruiting cycle ago. That 8 year stretch looks bad because it starts with 2007-2008, which were bad by Cornell standards, and because the last 3 years haven't been so hot either. Shift those 2 cycles back by 2 years and you get 5 NCAA appearances and 2 league titles. One more year back and you get into 2004 at the lead, and you're down to 4 NCAA appearances (but still 2 league titles).

To put this another way: this has been the worst 3-year stretch for the program since the 4 year span of 1998-2001 (wherein Cornell went 2 games over .500 and had 2 losing seasons). Think about that for a second - the worst three year stretch in 13 years includes an NCAA appearance and an overall 51-35-15 record.

I'm not saying that Cornell is going great guns right now, particularly not by the standards Schafer has set for the program, but I think anyone even considering removing him as head coach needs to step back from the ledge.

Tom Lento
but I think anyone even considering removing him as head coach needs to step back from the ledge.

This is why even "maybe" isn't a good fit for my response. I don't think Cornell should get rid of Schafer, because no one has identified anyone who would come into the program and do a better job. That said, "Schafer must go" and "Schafer should stay and coach exactly the same way" are not the only two realistic options. "Schafer stays and does something to improve the anemic offense" is a perfectly reasonable point of view.

Kyle Rose
"Schafer stays and does something to improve the anemic offense" is a perfectly reasonable point of view.

Yep. I bet Mike schafer himself would agree with that statement. He just might have a very different idea of what that something ought to be.

I am of the stay camp. A question was raised as to who would you want running the bench. In a post long long ago, George Gwozdecky was bantered about when the openings at UCONN and Maine were available. Did any one watch Denver?? They didn't exactly light the world on fire offensively. They were goaltending, defense first.Yes they did have success but they also fell trap to lack of offense. In my honest opinion the players need to shoot the puck more often. Wayne Gretzky always said 100% of the shots you don't take don't go in. Watch Ferlin during the Union game. How many times did he circle the net with the puck and not generate anything on offense. A great coach once said, I don't want a kid who can stick handle in a phone booth. The reason is what did he do to get himself in that situation in the first place. Of course I also can't stand the SHOOT! cry during the power play, so take it for what it is worth. I truly believe that the next few years are going to place us right back into the national spotlight....ECAC, and NCAA tournaments.

KeithK

Kyle Rose
"Schafer stays and does something to improve the anemic offense" is a perfectly reasonable point of view.

Yep. I bet Mike schafer himself would agree with that statement. He just might have a very different idea of what that something ought to be.

Pray tell, what do you think those things might be? What will be different next year? What should be different?

Coach Schafer is a good coach, particularly on D, but there is no reason to believe that things will change. There simply is no evidence to suggest that, quite the contrary. It is not like the issues of an anemic offense and power play are new they have been with us for years.

As I see it the choice is to make your peace with the "system" and the slightly above average results that it produces or make a a change. It is a perfectly reasonable position to stay the course but don't covet a frozen four spot unless you like disappointment.

Towerroad

KeithK

Kyle Rose
"Schafer stays and does something to improve the anemic offense" is a perfectly reasonable point of view.

Yep. I bet Mike schafer himself would agree with that statement. He just might have a very different idea of what that something ought to be.

Pray tell, what do you think those things might be? What will be different next year? What should be different?

Coach Schafer is a good coach, particularly on D, but there is no reason to believe that things will change. There simply is no evidence to suggest that, quite the contrary. It is not like the issues of an anemic offense and power play are new they have been with us for years.

As I see it the choice is to make your peace with the "system" and the slightly above average results that it produces or make a a change. It is a perfectly reasonable position to stay the course but don't covet a frozen four spot unless you like disappointment.

I don't know what he may try or if it is likely to make a difference. My point is that we shouldn't assume that he thinks things are fine. I don't get that impression from what I've heard him say. I do think that whatever approach is taken will likely not deviate much from the philosophy of strong positional hockey. Whether there is any hope of developing consistently strong offensive teams from that philosophy is the open question.

Many folks have suggested that Schafer should hire an offensive coach. That sounds like a great idea but it's not as simple as that. First off, there has to be a candidate who has the desired skills but can and wants to work within the Schafer system. A run and gun type guy wouldn't work. Two, tyou can't just a find a guy who can teach/coach hockey offense. He's got to be a good recruiter as well, since that's the heart of the assistant coach's job. Third, you have to find someone who wants to live in Ithaca. Finding someone who fits all of these criteria isn't necesarily easy.

I have to say, this thread is a lot more thoughtful and civilized than I expected it to be when I saw the subject line and the number of posts.

I understand what makes someone say, "I assume he's fine with it since it doesn't change," but I also think it's an obtuse thing to suggest, and I don't think it takes a genius to figure out why. Do you really think he sits down to meet with his assistants, and when one of them asks, "Hey, should we try to improve the power play?" he responds, "Nah, it's all good"?

Of course Schafer would like the PP to be crisper, and he'd like the forwards to create more opportunities off the cycle, and he'd like to fine-tune the breakout, but he has the players he has, they have the strengths and weaknesses they have, and he has to prioritize what he and the assistants work on. A coach makes the choices he makes because he believes focusing on certain things will give his team a better chance to win than focusing on others. Schafer could probably work on power play passing and set plays three hours more per week than he does now, but remember, the Ivy League limits practice to twenty hours a week, and all of these guys are carrying full courseloads at Cornell University. Which three hours of practice out of the other seventeen should he cut? Penalty kill? Even-strength blue-line play? Faceoffs?

I think Schafer is a great guy and a very talented coach and recruiter. I think he's done incredible things with this hockey team with limited resources and a skeptical audience that has constantly increasing expectations, and I think the stats other people have cited in this thread bear out that despite a few blips, he's had remarkably consistent results, too, which no other Cornell coach has had besides Ned. I think there are some better coaches in the college game, but I'm also smart enough to know Cornell will never, and could never, bring them to Ithaca, and there are several I wouldn't want there anyway because I don't think they'd have the slighest clue how to run a program within the time constraints and financial limitations of Ivy hockey.

So do I believe Schafer is the Second Coming™? No. But I'm inclined to believe that Schafer not only knows what he's doing, but knows that "what he's doing" has to involve trade-offs and hard choices, which I don't think everyone here grasps. And while I love to dream, I think he's the right coach for Cornell in the real world, and our actual best shot at national greatness.

Because the game changes, it may be best to look just at this year.

Cornell ranked 11th on team defense, giving up an average of 2.31 goals/game. Umass-Lowell ranked first with 1.85.

On offense, Cornell ranked 47th out of 59 w/ 2.41. BC ranked 1st w/ 4.05.

Cornell's power play ranked 32 w/ 17.48%; SLU was 1st with 27.17%.
Cornell's PK ranked 18 w/ 83.5%; BC was 1st w/ 90.5%.

Several teams blow the idea that there's a tradeoff between offense and defense. In these two areas, BC ranks 1 & 8, Union: 2& 4, Q 4& 2; Yale is the first Ivy @ 13 & 18.

Beeeej
I have to say, this thread is a lot more thoughtful and civilized than I expected it to be when I saw the subject line and the number of posts.

I understand what makes someone say, "I assume he's fine with it since it doesn't change," but I also think it's an obtuse thing to suggest, and I don't think it takes a genius to figure out why. Do you really think he sits down to meet with his assistants, and when one of them asks, "Hey, should we try to improve the power play?" he responds, "Nah, it's all good"?

Of course Schafer would like the PP to be crisper, and he'd like the forwards to create more opportunities off the cycle, and he'd like to fine-tune the breakout, but he has the players he has, they have the strengths and weaknesses they have, and he has to prioritize what he and the assistants work on. A coach makes the choices he makes because he believes focusing on certain things will give his team a better chance to win than focusing on others. Schafer could probably work on power play passing and set plays three hours more per week than he does now, but remember, the Ivy League limits practice to twenty hours a week, and all of these guys are carrying full courseloads at Cornell University. Which three hours of practice out of the other seventeen should he cut? Penalty kill? Even-strength blue-line play? Faceoffs?

I think Schafer is a great guy and a very talented coach and recruiter. I think he's done incredible things with this hockey team with limited resources and a skeptical audience that has constantly increasing expectations, and I think the stats other people have cited in this thread bear out that despite a few blips, he's had remarkably consistent results, too, which no other Cornell coach has had besides Ned. I think there are some better coaches in the college game, but I'm also smart enough to know Cornell will never, and could never, bring them to Ithaca, and there are several I wouldn't want there anyway because I don't think they'd have the slighest clue how to run a program within the time constraints and financial limitations of Ivy hockey.

So do I believe Schafer is the Second Coming™? No. But I'm inclined to believe that Schafer not only knows what he's doing, but knows that "what he's doing" has to involve trade-offs and hard choices, which I don't think everyone here grasps. And while I love to dream, I think he's the right coach for Cornell in the real world, and our actual best shot at national greatness.

Even Schafer skeptics, and I am one, think he is a good coach and I have every reason to believe he is a good person. I do have a problem with the "He has to cook with the ingredients he has" mentality. He is responsible for recruiting he chose the ingredients. I do think that the "System" with its focus on defense probably does not help him recruit fast, skating, players with a penchant for accurate shooting and NHL dreams. If you were one would you choose Cornell vs BC or Yale or Union?

I also think that the game is evolving and will look more and more like the womens game in the future. The very real issue of concussions, and the institutions responsibility for them, will dictate that over time the rules and the refs are going to be less tolerant of assertive physical play. We are already seeing that with our well above average penalty minutes. That will put more emphasis on passing, skating, speed, and playmaking. Not exactly our strengths in recent history.

If your goal is to be able to go to Lynah and see a good game, taunt the sieve, have fun, and see a team that will win more than it loses I think Coach Schafer will continue to provide you with what you want. If you have dreams of regularly making the NC$$ tournament and playing deep into it, I think you will be disappointed under Coach Schafer unless an ephinay is involved.

Tom Lento
I'm not saying that Cornell is going great guns right now, particularly not by the standards Schafer has set for the program, but I think anyone even considering removing him as head coach needs to step back from the ledge.

Let's not forget this - we (excepting those whose fandom dates back to the Harkness era) hold the program to the high standards we're discussing in this thread and elsewhere because of what Schafer has done. Why should we expect that any potential replacement (and nobody has identified a candidate in response to Kyle's requests for the "Schafer out" crowd to do so) will be able to keep the program at Schafer's level, let alone take the program to the next level?

Towerroad
I do have a problem with the "He has to cook with the ingredients he has" mentality. He is responsible for recruiting he chose the ingredients. I do think that the "System" with its focus on defense probably does not help him recruit fast, skating, players with a penchant for accurate shooting and NHL dreams. If you were one would you choose Cornell vs BC or Yale or Union?

This is a fair point. Schafer isn't in control of the dominant environmental conditions of Cornell hockey (admission standards, high cost with no scholarships, Ithaca's remoteness), but he does control The System. I do think The System was in part a concession to the college hockey environment of the 90's and early 00's when blue chip forwards were in short supply and did not look beyond the few big name factory schools, but if Yale did nothing else they showed that is no longer the case.

I can see the worry: The System was designed to compensate for a lack of offensive talent, but now it artificially perpetuates that very deficiency. But like several posters above I'm satisfied with the results Schafer has delivered. That does not mean we are blind to opportunity cost; it strongly suggests we are more risk-averse. It comes down to whether one thinks the Cornell name, with a hypothetically "neutral effect" coach, is in itself strong enough to guarantee a winning percentage significantly greater than .500 as a baseline condition. I think while it may have once it no longer does -- recruiting advantages have eroded everywhere and past performance does not guarantee future results.

Trotsky

Towerroad
I do have a problem with the "He has to cook with the ingredients he has" mentality. He is responsible for recruiting he chose the ingredients. I do think that the "System" with its focus on defense probably does not help him recruit fast, skating, players with a penchant for accurate shooting and NHL dreams. If you were one would you choose Cornell vs BC or Yale or Union?

This is a fair point. Schafer isn't in control of the dominant environmental conditions of Cornell hockey (admission standards, high cost with no scholarships, Ithaca's remoteness), but he does control The System. I do think The System was in part a concession to the college hockey environment of the 90's and early 00's when blue chip forwards were in short supply and did not look beyond the few big name factory schools, but if Yale did nothing else they showed that is no longer the case.

I can see the worry: The System was designed to compensate for a lack of offensive talent, but now it artificially perpetuates that very deficiency. But like several posters above I'm satisfied with the results Schafer has delivered. That does not mean we are blind to opportunity cost; it strongly suggests we are more risk-averse. It comes down to whether one thinks the Cornell name, with a hypothetically "neutral effect" coach, is in itself strong enough to guarantee a winning percentage significantly greater than .500 as a baseline condition. I think while it may have once it no longer does -- recruiting advantages have eroded everywhere and past performance does not guarantee future results.

From The Score's Backhand Shelf an article on systems (in general, and with a reference to Dryden's book "The Game" and how it relates to some views on The System.

Rita
From The Score's Backhand Shelf an article on systems (in general, and with a reference to Dryden's book "The Game" and how it relates to some views on The System.

Good article, thanks.

I had the Over/Under for number of Comments until the Caps were called out at 5.

It was Under.

Kyle Rose

Tom Lento
but I think anyone even considering removing him as head coach needs to step back from the ledge.

This is why even "maybe" isn't a good fit for my response. I don't think Cornell should get rid of Schafer, because no one has identified anyone who would come into the program and do a better job. That said, "Schafer must go" and "Schafer should stay and coach exactly the same way" are not the only two realistic options. "Schafer stays and does something to improve the anemic offense" is a perfectly reasonable point of view.

It's impossible to guarantee anyone would do a better job until they do it. (Look at what's happening with men's lacrosse -- whodathunkit?) But one has to be impressed with what Leaman did at Union and is now doing at Providence, as well as what Bennett has done since Leaman left.

But just for the sake of conversation (it's going to be a long off-season), I'll throw out two names who (a) might attract super top-flight talent, (b) know hockey, especially Cornell hockey, very, very well, and (c) might on some long-shot, off-chance actually be interested in coming to Ithaca to see what they could accomplish at this stage of their lives:

• Ken Dryden
• Joe Nieuwendyk

Swampy

Kyle Rose

Tom Lento
but I think anyone even considering removing him as head coach needs to step back from the ledge.

This is why even "maybe" isn't a good fit for my response. I don't think Cornell should get rid of Schafer, because no one has identified anyone who would come into the program and do a better job. That said, "Schafer must go" and "Schafer should stay and coach exactly the same way" are not the only two realistic options. "Schafer stays and does something to improve the anemic offense" is a perfectly reasonable point of view.

It's impossible to guarantee anyone would do a better job until they do it. (Look at what's happening with men's lacrosse -- whodathunkit?) But one has to be impressed with what Leaman did at Union and is now doing at Providence, as well as what Bennett has done since Leaman left.

But just for the sake of conversation (it's going to be a long off-season), I'll throw out two names who (a) might attract super top-flight talent, (b) know hockey, especially Cornell hockey, very, very well, and (c) might on some long-shot, off-chance actually be interested in coming to Ithaca to see what they could accomplish at this stage of their lives:

• Ken Dryden
• Joe Nieuwendyk

not that either would do it, but that has Ted Donato like potential...and Dryden is way to eclectic to connect with 19 year olds.

Well, you can take Dryden off your already-short list. He hasn't ever shown any inclination to do anything for Cornell hockey since he left.

Swampy

Kyle Rose

Tom Lento
but I think anyone even considering removing him as head coach needs to step back from the ledge.

This is why even "maybe" isn't a good fit for my response. I don't think Cornell should get rid of Schafer, because no one has identified anyone who would come into the program and do a better job. That said, "Schafer must go" and "Schafer should stay and coach exactly the same way" are not the only two realistic options. "Schafer stays and does something to improve the anemic offense" is a perfectly reasonable point of view.

It's impossible to guarantee anyone would do a better job until they do it. (Look at what's happening with men's lacrosse -- whodathunkit?) But one has to be impressed with what Leaman did at Union and is now doing at Providence, as well as what Bennett has done since Leaman left.

But just for the sake of conversation (it's going to be a long off-season), I'll throw out two names who (a) might attract super top-flight talent, (b) know hockey, especially Cornell hockey, very, very well, and (c) might on some long-shot, off-chance actually be interested in coming to Ithaca to see what they could accomplish at this stage of their lives:

• Ken Dryden
• Joe Nieuwendyk

I can't imagine Nieuwendyk coming back; we really have nothing to offer him, although occasionally I daydream about him as AD in the mold of Laing Kennedy. (I don't actually think this would work -- an Ivy AD is supposed to shit marble while fellating the Coors family, and I don't see Joe either enjoying that or being effective.)

Dryden is light years beyond anything Cornell can offer.

I don't see anybody in the current landscape who fits, and I see the job as Mike's until he decides to retire. He's about 50, so that's not going to be for a long time.

Trotsky


Dryden is light years beyond anything Cornell can offer.

Dryden for President (of Cornell).

Trotsky
I don't see anybody in the current landscape who fits, and I see the job as Mike's until he decides to retire. He's about 50, so that's not going to be for a long time.

His contract expires in 2016.

Trotsky
I can't imagine Nieuwendyk coming back; we really have nothing to offer him, although occasionally I daydream about him as AD in the mold of Laing Kennedy. (I don't actually think this would work -- an Ivy AD is supposed to shit marble while fellating the Coors family, and I don't see Joe either enjoying that or being effective.)

I think the bst we could hope for from Joe is some cameo appearances as guest volunteeer coach.

BearLover

Trotsky
I don't see anybody in the current landscape who fits, and I see the job as Mike's until he decides to retire. He's about 50, so that's not going to be for a long time.

His contract expires in 2016.

At which time it will most likely be renewed. I think there is zero chance that he would be forced out if the team continues to have seasons like the last one.

KeithK

BearLover

Trotsky
I don't see anybody in the current landscape who fits, and I see the job as Mike's until he decides to retire. He's about 50, so that's not going to be for a long time.

His contract expires in 2016.

At which time it will most likely be renewed. I think there is zero chance that he would be forced out if the team continues to have seasons like the last one.

Oh Keith, I think you just crushed BearLover. I have this image of BearLover crossing days off calendars (or taking over the E-Lynah game countdown ticker).

(Sorry BearLover, I don't know who you are, but it is just the image that has formed in my warped mind)

Be careful what you wish for. Brian McCutcheon is available (I think).......wasn't he fired after one season in Italy?

My question is whether we can find and recruit players analogous to Moulson, Vesce, Greening........even a couple more Ferlin types. I don't think that the staff is either lazy or somehow less competent so I presume that it's not easy but they're working intently on recruiting. It's a competitive world out there, but at the same time I respect what Coach Schafer has done for the program and I have confidence that he's the right person for the job going forward. Let's be honest, the Johnny Gaudreaus of the world aren't considering Cornell. If they were my kid, they would, but every hockey parent is mostly concerned with pro hockey development. Kids choose Northeastern over Dartmouth all the time.

He should stay!!

Two more things: (1) I will be shocked if he's not extended - this is idle blog chatter, I can't imagine that the administration is anything but pleased with the hockey program and (2) if he chose not to extend or was fired, I will be shocked if he's not snapped up somewhere else pretty quickly.

Imagine if you're a Michigan hockey fan, like me (grad school)........Red achieved a lot but the results recently have been worse with more talent. Other than the allure of Big Ten hockey (6 whole teams in the conference!!) and Michigan's history 3+ years ago, why would you consider Michigan? Di Giuseppe signed a pro contract and was a second round draft pick, but did he leave after his junior year because he's ready or because he's stopped developing? What about Guptil or Nieves?

There are several "storied" hockey programs with far less consistency. Michigan State and Maine come to mind. Where are BU and Miami heading?

Sorry for the rambling manifesto!

Rita

KeithK

BearLover

Trotsky
I don't see anybody in the current landscape who fits, and I see the job as Mike's until he decides to retire. He's about 50, so that's not going to be for a long time.

His contract expires in 2016.

At which time it will most likely be renewed. I think there is zero chance that he would be forced out if the team continues to have seasons like the last one.

Oh Keith, I think you just crushed BearLover. I have this image of BearLover crossing days off calendars (or taking over the E-Lynah game countdown ticker).

(Sorry BearLover, I don't know who you are, but it is just the image that has formed in my warped mind)

What is wrong with you? I never said anywhere on this forum that I wanted Schafer to go...??

Schafer's contract is up in 2016 and Cornell will, of course, offer to renew. But I wouldn't be surprised if Schafer left, given that his youngest child will graduate from high school in that year.

BearLover

Rita

KeithK

BearLover

Trotsky
I don't see anybody in the current landscape who fits, and I see the job as Mike's until he decides to retire. He's about 50, so that's not going to be for a long time.

His contract expires in 2016.

At which time it will most likely be renewed. I think there is zero chance that he would be forced out if the team continues to have seasons like the last one.

Oh Keith, I think you just crushed BearLover. I have this image of BearLover crossing days off calendars (or taking over the E-Lynah game countdown ticker).

(Sorry BearLover, I don't know who you are, but it is just the image that has formed in my warped mind)

What is wrong with you? I never said anywhere on this forum that I wanted Schafer to go...??

Schafer's contract is up in 2016 and Cornell will, of course, offer to renew. But I wouldn't be surprised if Schafer left, given that his youngest child will graduate from high school in that year.

Because just as kids are entering college is a typical time for parents to make major, potentially risky career changes? When they graduate college would seem more likely to me.

Robb
Because just as kids are entering college is a typical time for parents to make major, potentially risky career changes? When they graduate college would seem more likely to me.

If he wants to maximize his kids' grants at a top-tier, need-blind, full-need school, he'll quit his job the year before his kids enter college. That's what my dad did—unwittingly, admittedly—but it cut the loans I would have ended up with by close to 50%. Gotta love the financial aid systemcam.

Robb

BearLover

Rita

KeithK

BearLover

Trotsky
I don't see anybody in the current landscape who fits, and I see the job as Mike's until he decides to retire. He's about 50, so that's not going to be for a long time.

His contract expires in 2016.

At which time it will most likely be renewed. I think there is zero chance that he would be forced out if the team continues to have seasons like the last one.

Oh Keith, I think you just crushed BearLover. I have this image of BearLover crossing days off calendars (or taking over the E-Lynah game countdown ticker).

(Sorry BearLover, I don't know who you are, but it is just the image that has formed in my warped mind)

What is wrong with you? I never said anywhere on this forum that I wanted Schafer to go...??

Schafer's contract is up in 2016 and Cornell will, of course, offer to renew. But I wouldn't be surprised if Schafer left, given that his youngest child will graduate from high school in that year.

Because just as kids are entering college is a typical time for parents to make major, potentially risky career changes? When they graduate college would seem more likely to me.

I assume any job he would leave for would pay more. And he would probably want a four year contract minimum.

Kyle Rose

Robb
Because just as kids are entering college is a typical time for parents to make major, potentially risky career changes? When they graduate college would seem more likely to me.

If he wants to maximize his kids' grants at a top-tier, need-blind, full-need school, he'll quit his job the year before his kids enter college. That's what my dad did—unwittingly, admittedly—but it cut the loans I would have ended up with by close to 50%. Gotta love the financial aid systemcam.

On the other hand, his current employment does qualify his children for a nice discount on tuition at a quality university.

Josh '99

Kyle Rose

Robb
Because just as kids are entering college is a typical time for parents to make major, potentially risky career changes? When they graduate college would seem more likely to me.

If he wants to maximize his kids' grants at a top-tier, need-blind, full-need school, he'll quit his job the year before his kids enter college. That's what my dad did—unwittingly, admittedly—but it cut the loans I would have ended up with by close to 50%. Gotta love the financial aid systemcam.

On the other hand, his current employment does qualify his children for a nice discount on tuition at a quality university.

Schools like Cornell often have reciprocity agreements with other, similar universities. For example, children of employees at Brown, Columbia, and Johns Hopkins get free tuition at any of the participating schools (there are probably more than just these 3). Does anyone know if Cornell participates in this sort of thing?

Swampy

Josh '99

Kyle Rose

Robb
Because just as kids are entering college is a typical time for parents to make major, potentially risky career changes? When they graduate college would seem more likely to me.

If he wants to maximize his kids' grants at a top-tier, need-blind, full-need school, he'll quit his job the year before his kids enter college. That's what my dad did—unwittingly, admittedly—but it cut the loans I would have ended up with by close to 50%. Gotta love the financial aid systemcam.

On the other hand, his current employment does qualify his children for a nice discount on tuition at a quality university.

Schools like Cornell often have reciprocity agreements with other, similar universities. For example, children of employees at Brown, Columbia, and Johns Hopkins get free tuition at any of the participating schools (there are probably more than just these 3). Does anyone know if Cornell participates in this sort of thing?

Most current Cornell employees get 50% off Cornell tuition/fees for their kids or 30% off another school's tuition/fees (unless the other school is more expensive than Cornell).
[www.hr.cornell.edu]

Robb

BearLover

Rita

KeithK

BearLover

Trotsky
I don't see anybody in the current landscape who fits, and I see the job as Mike's until he decides to retire. He's about 50, so that's not going to be for a long time.

His contract expires in 2016.

At which time it will most likely be renewed. I think there is zero chance that he would be forced out if the team continues to have seasons like the last one.

Oh Keith, I think you just crushed BearLover. I have this image of BearLover crossing days off calendars (or taking over the E-Lynah game countdown ticker).

(Sorry BearLover, I don't know who you are, but it is just the image that has formed in my warped mind)

What is wrong with you? I never said anywhere on this forum that I wanted Schafer to go...??

Schafer's contract is up in 2016 and Cornell will, of course, offer to renew. But I wouldn't be surprised if Schafer left, given that his youngest child will graduate from high school in that year.

Because just as kids are entering college is a typical time for parents to make major, potentially risky career changes? When they graduate college would seem more likely to me.

No, but he no longer has a reason to stay in Ithaca.

BearLover

Robb

BearLover

Rita

KeithK

BearLover

Trotsky
I don't see anybody in the current landscape who fits, and I see the job as Mike's until he decides to retire. He's about 50, so that's not going to be for a long time.

His contract expires in 2016.

At which time it will most likely be renewed. I think there is zero chance that he would be forced out if the team continues to have seasons like the last one.

Oh Keith, I think you just crushed BearLover. I have this image of BearLover crossing days off calendars (or taking over the E-Lynah game countdown ticker).

(Sorry BearLover, I don't know who you are, but it is just the image that has formed in my warped mind)

What is wrong with you? I never said anywhere on this forum that I wanted Schafer to go...??

Schafer's contract is up in 2016 and Cornell will, of course, offer to renew. But I wouldn't be surprised if Schafer left, given that his youngest child will graduate from high school in that year.

Because just as kids are entering college is a typical time for parents to make major, potentially risky career changes? When they graduate college would seem more likely to me.

No, but he no longer has a reason to stay in Ithaca.

I've been of the same mind. Being a college head coach is a slog (not as much as the assistants, but still unpleasant at times). Schafer's made no bones about wanting to be a coach in the pros and this would seem like the right time for that switch if there's something available to his liking. If not, I can see him sticking around for maybe another 10 years, but I don't think he has any intention of being the next Jack Parker. If he does go, good luck finding a replacement for a comparatively low-paying position in an underfunded, Ivy League-handcuffed sport at a university where the AD cares more about wrestling. They'll probably end up having to promote from within (Topher or Ben). Or worse yet, Barry Melrose.

CowbellGuy
Or worse yet, Barry Melrose.

Kevan Melrose. Line brawls every night. Putting on the foil.

I've been wondering this question all season. Even if they lost that Game 3 to Clarkson he I'd say he should stay, but he needs to make some changes. I think the issue is now the ECAC is WAY more competitive now than it has ever been. This team is about as good as the one 2 years ago (and they made the regional finals in the NC$$), but the only difference is that year the only team worth a damn in the ECAC was Union (who we were 1-0-1 against that year!), so we had very few games (i.e Colgate and Harvard) that were against quality opponents. In the early to mid-2000s, there was usually only us and one or maybe two other teams that could put up a fight in the NC$$ tourney (usually Harvard or Clarkson, and that one year Princeton was really good). This year, the ECAC had SIX teams (Union, Colgate, Qpac, Cornell, Clarkson and Yale) who were threats. Schafer's system worked fine a decade ago, but he needs to change some things up. And I know he has his ways, but isn't a coach's job to make adjustments? At least fix the power play for God's sake. If we had even an average one, we could still be playing right now

ScrewBUHarvardtoo
I've been wondering this question all season. Even if they lost that Game 3 to Clarkson he I'd say he should stay, but he needs to make some changes. I think the issue is now the ECAC is WAY more competitive now than it has ever been. This team is about as good as the one 2 years ago (and they made the regional finals in the NC$$), but the only difference is that year the only team worth a damn in the ECAC was Union (who we were 1-0-1 against that year!), so we had very few games (i.e Colgate and Harvard) that were against quality opponents. In the early to mid-2000s, there was usually only us and one or maybe two other teams that could put up a fight in the NC$$ tourney (usually Harvard or Clarkson, and that one year Princeton was really good). This year, the ECAC had SIX teams (Union, Colgate, Qpac, Cornell, Clarkson and Yale) who were threats. Schafer's system worked fine a decade ago, but he needs to change some things up. And I know he has his ways, but isn't a coach's job to make adjustments? At least fix the power play for God's sake. If we had even an average one, we could still be playing right now

If fixing the power play were as simple and straightforward as posters here make it out to be, I have to assume they would've fixed it already.

Josh '99

ScrewBUHarvardtoo
I've been wondering this question all season. Even if they lost that Game 3 to Clarkson he I'd say he should stay, but he needs to make some changes. I think the issue is now the ECAC is WAY more competitive now than it has ever been. This team is about as good as the one 2 years ago (and they made the regional finals in the NC$$), but the only difference is that year the only team worth a damn in the ECAC was Union (who we were 1-0-1 against that year!), so we had very few games (i.e Colgate and Harvard) that were against quality opponents. In the early to mid-2000s, there was usually only us and one or maybe two other teams that could put up a fight in the NC$$ tourney (usually Harvard or Clarkson, and that one year Princeton was really good). This year, the ECAC had SIX teams (Union, Colgate, Qpac, Cornell, Clarkson and Yale) who were threats. Schafer's system worked fine a decade ago, but he needs to change some things up. And I know he has his ways, but isn't a coach's job to make adjustments? At least fix the power play for God's sake. If we had even an average one, we could still be playing right now

If fixing the power play were as simple and straightforward as posters here make it out to be, I have to assume they would've fixed it already.

This has been the University of Chicago Economics Department Sports Report. Good night, and good markets.

Josh '99

ScrewBUHarvardtoo
I've been wondering this question all season. Even if they lost that Game 3 to Clarkson he I'd say he should stay, but he needs to make some changes. I think the issue is now the ECAC is WAY more competitive now than it has ever been. This team is about as good as the one 2 years ago (and they made the regional finals in the NC$$), but the only difference is that year the only team worth a damn in the ECAC was Union (who we were 1-0-1 against that year!), so we had very few games (i.e Colgate and Harvard) that were against quality opponents. In the early to mid-2000s, there was usually only us and one or maybe two other teams that could put up a fight in the NC$$ tourney (usually Harvard or Clarkson, and that one year Princeton was really good). This year, the ECAC had SIX teams (Union, Colgate, Qpac, Cornell, Clarkson and Yale) who were threats. Schafer's system worked fine a decade ago, but he needs to change some things up. And I know he has his ways, but isn't a coach's job to make adjustments? At least fix the power play for God's sake. If we had even an average one, we could still be playing right now

If fixing the power play were as simple and straightforward as posters here make it out to be, I have to assume they would've fixed it already.

But why does the powerplay rank 30th out of 59 teams? Team offense, 47?

If we look at the FF, BC & Union are 1 & 2 on team offense, w/ Minny @ 6 & NoDak @ 18. On the PP, BC-5, U-9, M-16, & NoDak 31 (the only one Cornell beats).

On team defense, Cornell is a respectable #9 & #18 in the PK. Compare to the FF: Minny - #2, U - #4, BC - #8 and those NoDak characters, #16.
On the PK, BC is #1, ND - #21, U - #24, and Minny - #25.

One could argue Ivy League restrictions limit our personnel, but Yale is 11 on TO, Dartmouth is #44, Brown #45, then Cornell at #47, followed by Sucks - #52, and Princeton - #57.
On PP, Y is #19 @ 19.85% success, with Cornell second in the Ivies @ #30 w/ 17.46% success. So by Ivy standards our PP is above average.

On team defense, we're #1 in the Ivy League @ 2.31 GPG, followed by #17 Yale at 2.48. On the PK, Sucks is #14 w/ 84.3% kill rate, and we're #18 w/ 83.5% kill rate. The next Ivy, Yale, is way down at #44, with a rate of 80.4%.

From this I conclude that Ivy League restrictions probably account for about .5 GPG in Team Offense, which would put us tied with Maine at 2.91 and #27. Give the same handicap to Yale, and you have Union.

If we average the ranks of the Ivies on Team Offense and Defense, we get Y: 14, C: 38, H: 38.5, B: 39, D: 48, P: 56.5. It would be better to analyze scores rather than ranks.

If we average the ranks of the FF, we get: U: 3, M: 4, BC: 4.5, ND: 17.

Clearly, Yale is the only Ivy close to this level. If Cornell could average just 1 more goal per game, we would be a credible NC$$ candidate, with a combined rank of 9. (Still, this would put us behind all FF contenders save ND.) It's unlikely we'll be making much noice in the NC$$'s any time soon unless we do.

Swampy

Josh '99

ScrewBUHarvardtoo
I've been wondering this question all season. Even if they lost that Game 3 to Clarkson he I'd say he should stay, but he needs to make some changes. I think the issue is now the ECAC is WAY more competitive now than it has ever been. This team is about as good as the one 2 years ago (and they made the regional finals in the NC$$), but the only difference is that year the only team worth a damn in the ECAC was Union (who we were 1-0-1 against that year!), so we had very few games (i.e Colgate and Harvard) that were against quality opponents. In the early to mid-2000s, there was usually only us and one or maybe two other teams that could put up a fight in the NC$$ tourney (usually Harvard or Clarkson, and that one year Princeton was really good). This year, the ECAC had SIX teams (Union, Colgate, Qpac, Cornell, Clarkson and Yale) who were threats. Schafer's system worked fine a decade ago, but he needs to change some things up. And I know he has his ways, but isn't a coach's job to make adjustments? At least fix the power play for God's sake. If we had even an average one, we could still be playing right now

If fixing the power play were as simple and straightforward as posters here make it out to be, I have to assume they would've fixed it already.

But why does the powerplay rank 30th out of 59 teams? Team offense, 47?

If we look at the FF, BC & Union are 1 & 2 on team offense, w/ Minny @ 6 & NoDak @ 18. On the PP, BC-5, U-9, M-16, & NoDak 31 (the only one Cornell beats).

On team defense, Cornell is a respectable #9 & #18 in the PK. Compare to the FF: Minny - #2, U - #4, BC - #8 and those NoDak characters, #16.
On the PK, BC is #1, ND - #21, U - #24, and Minny - #25.

One could argue Ivy League restrictions limit our personnel, but Yale is 11 on TO, Dartmouth is #44, Brown #45, then Cornell at #47, followed by Sucks - #52, and Princeton - #57.
On PP, Y is #19 @ 19.85% success, with Cornell second in the Ivies @ #30 w/ 17.46% success. So by Ivy standards our PP is above average.

On team defense, we're #1 in the Ivy League @ 2.31 GPG, followed by #17 Yale at 2.48. On the PK, Sucks is #14 w/ 84.3% kill rate, and we're #18 w/ 83.5% kill rate. The next Ivy, Yale, is way down at #44, with a rate of 80.4%.

From this I conclude that Ivy League restrictions probably account for about .5 GPG in Team Offense, which would put us tied with Maine at 2.91 and #27. Give the same handicap to Yale, and you have Union.

If we average the ranks of the Ivies on Team Offense and Defense, we get Y: 14, C: 38, H: 38.5, B: 39, D: 48, P: 56.5. It would be better to analyze scores rather than ranks.

If we average the ranks of the FF, we get: U: 3, M: 4, BC: 4.5, ND: 17.

Clearly, Yale is the only Ivy close this level. If Cornell could average just 1 more goal per game, we would be a credible NC$$ candidate, with a combined rank of 9. (Still, this would put us behind all FF contenders save ND.) It's unlikely we'll be making much noice in the NC$$'s any time soon unless we do.

Nice analysis.

Towerroad

Swampy

Josh '99

ScrewBUHarvardtoo
I've been wondering this question all season. Even if they lost that Game 3 to Clarkson he I'd say he should stay, but he needs to make some changes. I think the issue is now the ECAC is WAY more competitive now than it has ever been. This team is about as good as the one 2 years ago (and they made the regional finals in the NC$$), but the only difference is that year the only team worth a damn in the ECAC was Union (who we were 1-0-1 against that year!), so we had very few games (i.e Colgate and Harvard) that were against quality opponents. In the early to mid-2000s, there was usually only us and one or maybe two other teams that could put up a fight in the NC$$ tourney (usually Harvard or Clarkson, and that one year Princeton was really good). This year, the ECAC had SIX teams (Union, Colgate, Qpac, Cornell, Clarkson and Yale) who were threats. Schafer's system worked fine a decade ago, but he needs to change some things up. And I know he has his ways, but isn't a coach's job to make adjustments? At least fix the power play for God's sake. If we had even an average one, we could still be playing right now

If fixing the power play were as simple and straightforward as posters here make it out to be, I have to assume they would've fixed it already.

But why does the powerplay rank 30th out of 59 teams? Team offense, 47?

If we look at the FF, BC & Union are 1 & 2 on team offense, w/ Minny @ 6 & NoDak @ 18. On the PP, BC-5, U-9, M-16, & NoDak 31 (the only one Cornell beats).

On team defense, Cornell is a respectable #9 & #18 in the PK. Compare to the FF: Minny - #2, U - #4, BC - #8 and those NoDak characters, #16.
On the PK, BC is #1, ND - #21, U - #24, and Minny - #25.

One could argue Ivy League restrictions limit our personnel, but Yale is 11 on TO, Dartmouth is #44, Brown #45, then Cornell at #47, followed by Sucks - #52, and Princeton - #57.
On PP, Y is #19 @ 19.85% success, with Cornell second in the Ivies @ #30 w/ 17.46% success. So by Ivy standards our PP is above average.

On team defense, we're #1 in the Ivy League @ 2.31 GPG, followed by #17 Yale at 2.48. On the PK, Sucks is #14 w/ 84.3% kill rate, and we're #18 w/ 83.5% kill rate. The next Ivy, Yale, is way down at #44, with a rate of 80.4%.

From this I conclude that Ivy League restrictions probably account for about .5 GPG in Team Offense, which would put us tied with Maine at 2.91 and #27. Give the same handicap to Yale, and you have Union.

If we average the ranks of the Ivies on Team Offense and Defense, we get Y: 14, C: 38, H: 38.5, B: 39, D: 48, P: 56.5. It would be better to analyze scores rather than ranks.

If we average the ranks of the FF, we get: U: 3, M: 4, BC: 4.5, ND: 17.

Clearly, Yale is the only Ivy close this level. If Cornell could average just 1 more goal per game, we would be a credible NC$$ candidate, with a combined rank of 9. (Still, this would put us behind all FF contenders save ND.) It's unlikely we'll be making much noice in the NC$$'s any time soon unless we do.

Nice analysis.

Yale scores more points because of their general lack of a system. It may be exiting and put points on the board, but it's not reliable and doesn't develop players. Plus, you still need some players that can finish reliably. "Just" 1 more goal per game is the difference between Army in 55th and UNO in 13th. You don't just pick up a goal per game without loading up on talent or completely changing your system and sacrificing defense (probably not a good idea with a goalie who is largely untested).

Given the choice, it's more efficient to depress GA than increase GF. Ideally of course you want to do both, but assume an environment in which any improvement is a draw on limited resources (recruiting energy, system trade offs, practice time). If you start out at 2.3 GFA and 2.3 GAA, and you assume roughly equal dispersion, then it is more beneficial to drive down the GAA mean for each tenth of a point than to increase the GFA by that same point.

Towerroad

Swampy

Josh '99

ScrewBUHarvardtoo
I've been wondering this question all season. Even if they lost that Game 3 to Clarkson he I'd say he should stay, but he needs to make some changes. I think the issue is now the ECAC is WAY more competitive now than it has ever been. This team is about as good as the one 2 years ago (and they made the regional finals in the NC$$), but the only difference is that year the only team worth a damn in the ECAC was Union (who we were 1-0-1 against that year!), so we had very few games (i.e Colgate and Harvard) that were against quality opponents. In the early to mid-2000s, there was usually only us and one or maybe two other teams that could put up a fight in the NC$$ tourney (usually Harvard or Clarkson, and that one year Princeton was really good). This year, the ECAC had SIX teams (Union, Colgate, Qpac, Cornell, Clarkson and Yale) who were threats. Schafer's system worked fine a decade ago, but he needs to change some things up. And I know he has his ways, but isn't a coach's job to make adjustments? At least fix the power play for God's sake. If we had even an average one, we could still be playing right now

If fixing the power play were as simple and straightforward as posters here make it out to be, I have to assume they would've fixed it already.

But why does the powerplay rank 30th out of 59 teams? Team offense, 47?

If we look at the FF, BC & Union are 1 & 2 on team offense, w/ Minny @ 6 & NoDak @ 18. On the PP, BC-5, U-9, M-16, & NoDak 31 (the only one Cornell beats).

On team defense, Cornell is a respectable #9 & #18 in the PK. Compare to the FF: Minny - #2, U - #4, BC - #8 and those NoDak characters, #16.
On the PK, BC is #1, ND - #21, U - #24, and Minny - #25.

One could argue Ivy League restrictions limit our personnel, but Yale is 11 on TO, Dartmouth is #44, Brown #45, then Cornell at #47, followed by Sucks - #52, and Princeton - #57.
On PP, Y is #19 @ 19.85% success, with Cornell second in the Ivies @ #30 w/ 17.46% success. So by Ivy standards our PP is above average.

On team defense, we're #1 in the Ivy League @ 2.31 GPG, followed by #17 Yale at 2.48. On the PK, Sucks is #14 w/ 84.3% kill rate, and we're #18 w/ 83.5% kill rate. The next Ivy, Yale, is way down at #44, with a rate of 80.4%.

From this I conclude that Ivy League restrictions probably account for about .5 GPG in Team Offense, which would put us tied with Maine at 2.91 and #27. Give the same handicap to Yale, and you have Union.

If we average the ranks of the Ivies on Team Offense and Defense, we get Y: 14, C: 38, H: 38.5, B: 39, D: 48, P: 56.5. It would be better to analyze scores rather than ranks.

If we average the ranks of the FF, we get: U: 3, M: 4, BC: 4.5, ND: 17.

Clearly, Yale is the only Ivy close this level. If Cornell could average just 1 more goal per game, we would be a credible NC$$ candidate, with a combined rank of 9. (Still, this would put us behind all FF contenders save ND.) It's unlikely we'll be making much noice in the NC$$'s any time soon unless we do.

Nice analysis.

It is a nice analysis, but ultimately he hasn't really responded to Josh's point with anything but a much longer-winded way of saying "We need to fix our power play." Sure, he also kind of asked "What's wrong with it that needs fixing?" or at least he asked "What do teams with better power plays have that we don't?" and that's a step very few other posters here have bothered to take, but it still doesn't provide anything remotely resembling a solution. If we could go down to the all-night points outlet and buy an extra point a game, we'd have done that by now, too.

CowbellGuy

Towerroad

Swampy

Josh '99

ScrewBUHarvardtoo
I've been wondering this question all season. Even if they lost that Game 3 to Clarkson he I'd say he should stay, but he needs to make some changes. I think the issue is now the ECAC is WAY more competitive now than it has ever been. This team is about as good as the one 2 years ago (and they made the regional finals in the NC$$), but the only difference is that year the only team worth a damn in the ECAC was Union (who we were 1-0-1 against that year!), so we had very few games (i.e Colgate and Harvard) that were against quality opponents. In the early to mid-2000s, there was usually only us and one or maybe two other teams that could put up a fight in the NC$$ tourney (usually Harvard or Clarkson, and that one year Princeton was really good). This year, the ECAC had SIX teams (Union, Colgate, Qpac, Cornell, Clarkson and Yale) who were threats. Schafer's system worked fine a decade ago, but he needs to change some things up. And I know he has his ways, but isn't a coach's job to make adjustments? At least fix the power play for God's sake. If we had even an average one, we could still be playing right now

If fixing the power play were as simple and straightforward as posters here make it out to be, I have to assume they would've fixed it already.

But why does the powerplay rank 30th out of 59 teams? Team offense, 47?

If we look at the FF, BC & Union are 1 & 2 on team offense, w/ Minny @ 6 & NoDak @ 18. On the PP, BC-5, U-9, M-16, & NoDak 31 (the only one Cornell beats).

On team defense, Cornell is a respectable #9 & #18 in the PK. Compare to the FF: Minny - #2, U - #4, BC - #8 and those NoDak characters, #16.
On the PK, BC is #1, ND - #21, U - #24, and Minny - #25.

One could argue Ivy League restrictions limit our personnel, but Yale is 11 on TO, Dartmouth is #44, Brown #45, then Cornell at #47, followed by Sucks - #52, and Princeton - #57.
On PP, Y is #19 @ 19.85% success, with Cornell second in the Ivies @ #30 w/ 17.46% success. So by Ivy standards our PP is above average.

On team defense, we're #1 in the Ivy League @ 2.31 GPG, followed by #17 Yale at 2.48. On the PK, Sucks is #14 w/ 84.3% kill rate, and we're #18 w/ 83.5% kill rate. The next Ivy, Yale, is way down at #44, with a rate of 80.4%.

From this I conclude that Ivy League restrictions probably account for about .5 GPG in Team Offense, which would put us tied with Maine at 2.91 and #27. Give the same handicap to Yale, and you have Union.

If we average the ranks of the Ivies on Team Offense and Defense, we get Y: 14, C: 38, H: 38.5, B: 39, D: 48, P: 56.5. It would be better to analyze scores rather than ranks.

If we average the ranks of the FF, we get: U: 3, M: 4, BC: 4.5, ND: 17.

Clearly, Yale is the only Ivy close this level. If Cornell could average just 1 more goal per game, we would be a credible NC$$ candidate, with a combined rank of 9. (Still, this would put us behind all FF contenders save ND.) It's unlikely we'll be making much noice in the NC$$'s any time soon unless we do.

Nice analysis.

Yale scores more points because of their general lack of a system. It may be exiting and put points on the board, but it's not reliable and doesn't develop players. Plus, you still need some players that can finish reliably. "Just" 1 more goal per game is the difference between Army in 55th and UNO in 13th. You don't just pick up a goal per game without loading up on talent or completely changing your system and sacrificing defense (probably not a good idea with a goalie who is largely untested).

Yeah, but 3 of the FF beat us on both TO and TD rankings. So it's not as if there's a deterministic tradeoff between offense and defense. As for developing players, I've not been able to find better data in the short time I spent on it, but three years ago this page listed Yale as having 2 alumni in the NHL. Cornell had 4, as did Princeton, and Dartmouth had 6. I'm not sure what player development buys or why only a system develops players. I think Dryden wrote that all hockey teams have systems, it's just that some teams have more talented players to whom the system gives more leeway.

Beeeej
It is a nice analysis, but ultimately he hasn't really responded to Josh's point with anything but a much longer-winded way of saying "We need to fix our power play." Sure, he also kind of asked "What's wrong with it that needs fixing?" or at least he asked "What do teams with better power plays have that we don't?" and that's a step very few other posters here have bothered to take, but it still doesn't provide anything remotely resembling a solution. If we could go down to the all-night points outlet and buy an extra point a game, we'd have done that by now, too.

Did you just censure someone for not offering solutions while not offering solutions?

Trotsky

Beeeej
It is a nice analysis, but ultimately he hasn't really responded to Josh's point with anything but a much longer-winded way of saying "We need to fix our power play." Sure, he also kind of asked "What's wrong with it that needs fixing?" or at least he asked "What do teams with better power plays have that we don't?" and that's a step very few other posters here have bothered to take, but it still doesn't provide anything remotely resembling a solution. If we could go down to the all-night points outlet and buy an extra point a game, we'd have done that by now, too.

Did you just censure someone for not offering solutions while not offering solutions?

I'm not in the crowd assuming that fixing the power play should be a simple matter of deciding to fix the power play. I agree with what Josh said, and had kind of said it already upthread, though it took me several more paragraphs to say it. It's analagous to saying Schafer must go then shrugging feebly when someone asks who else we might be able to get who's likely to get better results. Fix the power play, sure, we'd love to - how?

Beeeej

Trotsky

Beeeej
It is a nice analysis, but ultimately he hasn't really responded to Josh's point with anything but a much longer-winded way of saying "We need to fix our power play." Sure, he also kind of asked "What's wrong with it that needs fixing?" or at least he asked "What do teams with better power plays have that we don't?" and that's a step very few other posters here have bothered to take, but it still doesn't provide anything remotely resembling a solution. If we could go down to the all-night points outlet and buy an extra point a game, we'd have done that by now, too.

Did you just censure someone for not offering solutions while not offering solutions?

I'm not in the crowd assuming that fixing the power play should be a simple matter of deciding to fix the power play. I agree with what Josh said, and had kind of said it already upthread, though it took me several more paragraphs to say it. It's analagous to saying Schafer must go then shrugging feebly when someone asks who else we might be able to get who's likely to get better results. Fix the power play, sure, we'd love to - how?

Trying to restore some levity to the thread. When things get to where you are losing your sense of humor, I begin to worry.

The Losing His Shit Scale goes thusly:

1 Kyle loses his sense of humor. (baseline)
3 Jim loses his sense of humor. A bad day.
5 Beeeej* loses his sense of humor. Situation becoming worrisome.
7 ugarte loses his sense of humor. Serious. Scale no longer amusing.
9 RichH loses his sense of humor. Extinction event.

(* post-marriage may need to be re-scored as 4 due to stress)

Beeeej

Trotsky

Beeeej
It is a nice analysis, but ultimately he hasn't really responded to Josh's point with anything but a much longer-winded way of saying "We need to fix our power play." Sure, he also kind of asked "What's wrong with it that needs fixing?" or at least he asked "What do teams with better power plays have that we don't?" and that's a step very few other posters here have bothered to take, but it still doesn't provide anything remotely resembling a solution. If we could go down to the all-night points outlet and buy an extra point a game, we'd have done that by now, too.

Did you just censure someone for not offering solutions while not offering solutions?

I'm not in the crowd assuming that fixing the power play should be a simple matter of deciding to fix the power play. I agree with what Josh said, and had kind of said it already upthread, though it took me several more paragraphs to say it. It's analagous to saying Schafer must go then shrugging feebly when someone asks who else we might be able to get who's likely to get better results. Fix the power play, sure, we'd love to - how?

It's glib, but ... shoot more. Be willing to compromise the defense a little; risk giving up a stray breakaway by having the point men join the hunt for second chances sometimes. My pet theory is the reason that Cornell seeks the perfect shot on the PP is because we seem not to have someone in position to hack at rebounds, so the shooters only fire away when they think the opportunity is perfect.

I have no opinion on whether this reluctance is a coaching philosophy or a learned helplessness/coping mechanism on the part of the players.

Beeeej

Trotsky

Beeeej
It is a nice analysis, but ultimately he hasn't really responded to Josh's point with anything but a much longer-winded way of saying "We need to fix our power play." Sure, he also kind of asked "What's wrong with it that needs fixing?" or at least he asked "What do teams with better power plays have that we don't?" and that's a step very few other posters here have bothered to take, but it still doesn't provide anything remotely resembling a solution. If we could go down to the all-night points outlet and buy an extra point a game, we'd have done that by now, too.

Did you just censure someone for not offering solutions while not offering solutions?

I'm not in the crowd assuming that fixing the power play should be a simple matter of deciding to fix the power play. I agree with what Josh said, and had kind of said it already upthread, though it took me several more paragraphs to say it. It's analagous to saying Schafer must go then shrugging feebly when someone asks who else we might be able to get who's likely to get better results. Fix the power play, sure, we'd love to - how?

ugarte
My pet theory is the reason that Cornell seeks the perfect shot on the PP is because we seem not to have someone in position to hack at rebounds, so the shooters only fire away when they think the opportunity is perfect.

I have no opinion on whether this reluctance is a coaching philosophy or a learned helplessness/coping mechanism on the part of the players.

It's kind of weird, too, because big defensive teams full of elegantly twirling oak trees usually camp a guy out front and then try to either feed him or force a rebound.

Here is the history of our special teams (not updated the last 3 years yet, and missing the 90s due to lack of data, sorry). I don't know how much of an impact it had, but it seems to me that around the time of the Romano / Milo debacle (2007), we got burned innumerable times both on pp and even strength by blocked shots that turned into rushes the other way (it wasn't Romano and Milo who necessarily did this, they're just my timestamp). 2006 was about the time the pp went into the toilet for good, although 2004 was bad too (far worse than I recall, actually).

Might it have been that we started holding back on our shots because we were terrified about the counter attack, and that just grew into a permanent part of The System?

Trotsky

Beeeej

Trotsky

Beeeej
It is a nice analysis, but ultimately he hasn't really responded to Josh's point with anything but a much longer-winded way of saying "We need to fix our power play." Sure, he also kind of asked "What's wrong with it that needs fixing?" or at least he asked "What do teams with better power plays have that we don't?" and that's a step very few other posters here have bothered to take, but it still doesn't provide anything remotely resembling a solution. If we could go down to the all-night points outlet and buy an extra point a game, we'd have done that by now, too.

Did you just censure someone for not offering solutions while not offering solutions?

I'm not in the crowd assuming that fixing the power play should be a simple matter of deciding to fix the power play. I agree with what Josh said, and had kind of said it already upthread, though it took me several more paragraphs to say it. It's analagous to saying Schafer must go then shrugging feebly when someone asks who else we might be able to get who's likely to get better results. Fix the power play, sure, we'd love to - how?

Trying to restore some levity to the thread. When things get to where you are losing your sense of humor, I begin to worry.

The Losing His Shit Scale goes thusly:

1 Kyle loses his sense of humor. (baseline)
3 Jim loses his sense of humor. A bad day.
5 Beeeej* loses his sense of humor. Situation becoming worrisome.
7 ugarte loses his sense of humor. Serious. Scale no longer amusing.
9 RichH loses his sense of humor. Extinction event.

(* post-marriage may need to be re-scored as 4 due to stress)

Congratulations, Rich!

I'll tell you one thing I think they can do to improve the PP.

Show a little more urgency when the puck is in the Cornell zone & they're pondering their breakout. Do they really have to stand behind their own goal and wait for EVERY Cornell player to get in the perfect position? Geez!! It sometimes looks they CU is the one trying to run out the clock on their own PP!!
Not a big deal, you say? Well, it's enough for another shot or two on every PP; maybe more! Doesn't that seem like it could result in some more scoring?

That goes along with another suggestion (that I made) that the goalies could be helping by advancing the puck up-ice. Why not? Every PP consists of a finite amount of time. Let's spend more of it in the correct end of the ice!

Just because players, coaches, & fans are used to the time wasted in the defensive zone, that does not make it the wise thing to do. Put some pressure on that D. When they think they can do a leisurely line change, come right at em!!

We do waste a shitload of time getting set up for the breakout, and not just on the pp. Typically you expect that when you're playing superior competition, but we do it all the time.

The ironic (maddening) part of which is we have the speed and talent with this junior class to really push the puck hard and force the opponent back on their heels. Teams forecheck us aggressively because there is no punishment if they get it wrong -- we'll still let them get back.

Beeeej

Trotsky

Beeeej
It is a nice analysis, but ultimately he hasn't really responded to Josh's point with anything but a much longer-winded way of saying "We need to fix our power play." Sure, he also kind of asked "What's wrong with it that needs fixing?" or at least he asked "What do teams with better power plays have that we don't?" and that's a step very few other posters here have bothered to take, but it still doesn't provide anything remotely resembling a solution. If we could go down to the all-night points outlet and buy an extra point a game, we'd have done that by now, too.

Did you just censure someone for not offering solutions while not offering solutions?

I'm not in the crowd assuming that fixing the power play should be a simple matter of deciding to fix the power play. I agree with what Josh said, and had kind of said it already upthread, though it took me several more paragraphs to say it. It's analagous to saying Schafer must go then shrugging feebly when someone asks who else we might be able to get who's likely to get better results. Fix the power play, sure, we'd love to - how?

I think one of my points, based on admittedly flawed data, is that our PP is not so bad (#2 Ivy, #30 nationally). OTOH, our overall team offense is atrocious (#4 in the ancient six, #47 nationally). I also tried to debunk the idea that a team necessarily trades off offense for defense.

Put this all together, and I suggest three possible conclusions. (1) There is a way to do much better, and it's through improving the offense. (2) This is about the best Cornell can do, so we should get used to mediocrity. (3) This year, and perhaps other recent years, are anamolies, and Cornell will soon rise to where it was 5 years ago and earlier.

I'm inclined to believe #1, but I can't say why. If you're asking how to enact #1, you're asking the wrong person. If I knew that, I'd be applying for the next open MD1 coaching job. (Princeton? Union?)

I'm not saying anything much different from what others have said (Kyle, Trotsky, Rita, etc.). Schafer has been an extremely successful coach, but in recent years he hasn't been achieving even his own goals. (I recall an interview somewhere in which he said this is to be a top-10 team every year.) To get back to this level, either he has to do something to give the offense some juice, or someone else has to do it. That someone else could be an assistant, probably not one who came through the system, or it could be a replacement.

Or it could just happen, and we'd think he made some adjustments. I'm still hoping that next year's senior class will lead us to the promised land. Because after that, the deluge.

Swampy
I'm still hoping that next year's senior class will lead us to the promised land. Because after that, the deluge.

We'll see what the incoming freshmen look like. The class of '15 is special; '17 seems perfectly reasonable. '16 is a hole (I guess most of the talent decomitted), but then again '14 was a weak class (albeit with a good goalie) too. In a way this means we get two years ('18 / '19) to ramp up for the impending loss of '15. Reasonable, as long as there's talent in those two classes. I don't think we'll see a deluge as much as a slight drizzle.

Josh '99

Trotsky

Beeeej

Trotsky

Beeeej
It is a nice analysis, but ultimately he hasn't really responded to Josh's point with anything but a much longer-winded way of saying "We need to fix our power play." Sure, he also kind of asked "What's wrong with it that needs fixing?" or at least he asked "What do teams with better power plays have that we don't?" and that's a step very few other posters here have bothered to take, but it still doesn't provide anything remotely resembling a solution. If we could go down to the all-night points outlet and buy an extra point a game, we'd have done that by now, too.

Did you just censure someone for not offering solutions while not offering solutions?

I'm not in the crowd assuming that fixing the power play should be a simple matter of deciding to fix the power play. I agree with what Josh said, and had kind of said it already upthread, though it took me several more paragraphs to say it. It's analagous to saying Schafer must go then shrugging feebly when someone asks who else we might be able to get who's likely to get better results. Fix the power play, sure, we'd love to - how?

Trying to restore some levity to the thread. When things get to where you are losing your sense of humor, I begin to worry.

The Losing His Shit Scale goes thusly:

1 Kyle loses his sense of humor. (baseline)
3 Jim loses his sense of humor. A bad day.
5 Beeeej* loses his sense of humor. Situation becoming worrisome.
7 ugarte loses his sense of humor. Serious. Scale no longer amusing.
9 RichH loses his sense of humor. Extinction event.

(* post-marriage may need to be re-scored as 4 due to stress)

Congratulations, Rich!

Yes! I'm the last fool standing?

RichH
Yes! I'm the last fool standing?

More like the circuit breaker for the whole thing.

But hey, no pressure.

My suggestion would be to skate around a little more in the offensive zone on the PP.

I'm not too worried about urgency or wasted time setting up the PP. But I think we tend to get a little too static once we're in the zone. More moving parts could help.