Should He Stay or Shoul He Go Part 2

Poll

For the 45% who answered wait another year and decide, what is the minimu performance would lead you to want to keep the Coach

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

NCAA 2nd Round	1		2%
Make the NCAA's	11		21%
Make the ECAC Championship Game	8		15%
ECAC 1st round Bye	19		37%
Win more games more than this season	6		12%
Other	7		13%

---

This poll is targeted at those that answered the previous poll and checked the "One more season and then decide." What is the specific minimum performance that you would like to see to justify moving you to renew the coach's contract.

This poll is targeted at those that answered the previous poll and checked the "One more season and then decide." What is the specific minimum performance that you would like to see to justify moving you to renew the coach's contract.

(I voted one more year in the other poll.) Given the low level of talent on next year's team, I said bye in ECAC to keep him ONE MORE year. But since presumably his contract is running out then, I would not feel comfortable giving him a new multiyear deal unless he makes the NCAAs. So...I want to change my vote.

I answered "one more year and then decide" on the prior poll, and "other" on this one. Next year is not about record. If we play like this year with no creativity, very little fore-check pressure, a monotonous pp, but retrench to the prior years' strong defense and flawless goaltending, and wind up .550, 4th, and a trip to LP, that will not be progress. If we open the offense, take risks, apply relentless checking pressure, recruit a different profile player, but finish 10th with a handful of wins, that will be progress.

It's possible that The System (TM) will rise again and we'll dominate opponents as a Dream-Crushing, Soul-Devouring Juggernaut that scores 1.9 GPG and gives up 1.2 and makes the NCAAs. I'm not picky; I'll take that, too. But these 3 seasons have shaken my belief in the timelessness of Schafer's style. Change, even if it results in a short term death spiral, I can tolerate. Retrenchment with instant return to national contention I'll take too (my, I am generous). The one unacceptable outcome is retrenchment and mediocrity -- that will tip me towards the Moran Hypothesis, where a legendary coach who should be lauded and honored without restraint must also be moved on from.

Schafer dates from my undergrad years and I identify strongly with him as the savior of our program which, in the mid-90s, was in serious jeopardy. I'm never going to be a guy to relish handing him a pink slip. But whereas in prior years I'd help bar the door against anybody wanting to make that change, I've started to entertain the eventuality of life after Schafer.

And it would not kill me to see a Cornell team play an up tempo style again in my lifetime.

It's tricky. Based on who we're losing, I don't expect next year to be that great a year, and given that, I'm iffy on setting a bar for exactly how well they have to do.

I voted for "win more games than this year", since that's about where I'm at.

Trotsky has this about right. Benchmarks aren't the point.

From the TMQ.

Thumbs down

To Cornell. After running down Yale, Brown, Penn State and Denver in November, the Big Red were in the conversation for the NCAA tournament. Now the season has come to an abrupt end at the hands of Union. The seventh-seeded Big Red was outscored 11-2 in the two-game sweep and finished the season with just two wins in its final 11 games. Cornell ended the year with an 11-14-6 mark, the fewest wins since Mike Schafer took over the program in 1995.

Read more: [www.uscho.com]

My take on this is that Schafer is the coach, and it's up to him to do what he feels necessary to turn things around. He could give a rats ass about what any of us think as he goes about doing whatever it is he is going to do to try and change things. If his tenure is coming to an end, you can be damn sure he's going out on his own terms, with no regrets.

this convo is kinda ridiculous at this point--I'd say it'd be one thing if he was in his late 60s or 70s and it was a Lou Marsh/Tim Taylor situation where you can argue it's time for him to move on;here we're talking about what a mediocre 3 years, not a decade. And we all know Cornell isn't going to open the vault and hire a big name replacement anyways.

That said, I wouldn't mind a coaching staff shakeup of some sort--I wonder where Jamie Russell is these days.

underskill
this convo is kinda ridiculous at this point--I'd say it'd be one thing if he was in his late 60s or 70s and it was a Lou Marsh/Tim Taylor situation where you can argue it's time for him to move on;here we're talking about what a mediocre 3 years, not a decade. And we all know Cornell isn't going to open the vault and hire a big name replacement anyways.

That said, I wouldn't mind a coaching staff shakeup of some sort--I wonder where Jamie Russell is these days.

Elmira.

Are there "big name" college hockey coaches? It's not exactly a Calipari-type gig. Those that are legends are so because of tenure more than anything else, and you don't rebuild a program around a 60-year old.

Trotsky

underskill
this convo is kinda ridiculous at this point--I'd say it'd be one thing if he was in his late 60s or 70s and it was a Lou Marsh/Tim Taylor situation where you can argue it's time for him to move on;here we're talking about what a mediocre 3 years, not a decade. And we all know Cornell isn't going to open the vault and hire a big name replacement anyways.

That said, I wouldn't mind a coaching staff shakeup of some sort--I wonder where Jamie Russell is these days.

Elmira.

Are there "big name" college hockey coaches? It's not exactly a Calipari-type gig. Those that are legends are so because of tenure more than anything else, and you don't rebuild a program around a 60-year old.

As has been said on other threads, this year's graduating class was supposed to bring us back to the Promised Land^TM, but injuries, a defection to the pros, and failure to develop players as hoped blew it. Looking ahead my feelings would be different if I saw us bringing in a top-10 recruiting class. I'd even be happy with a top-3 or 4 in the ECAC or top-2 in the Ivies. But I think since Casey Jones left, our recruiting has fallen off.

One other point. Some years ago Shafer said the consistent goal for this program is to be a top-10 team every year. Since we're currently ranked 36th, by this standard this year has been an unmitigated disaster. Can someone tell us the last time we were in the top 10 at the end of the season?

It's hard to see a light at the end of the tunnel.

Swampy

Trotsky

underskill
this convo is kinda ridiculous at this point--I'd say it'd be one thing if he was in his late 60s or 70s and it was a Lou Marsh/Tim Taylor situation where you can argue it's time for him to move on;here we're talking about what a mediocre 3 years, not a decade. And we all know Cornell isn't going to open the vault and hire a big name replacement anyways.

That said, I wouldn't mind a coaching staff shakeup of some sort--I wonder where Jamie Russell is these days.

Elmira.

Are there "big name" college hockey coaches? It's not exactly a Calipari-type gig. Those that are legends are so because of tenure more than anything else, and you don't rebuild a program around a 60-year old.

As has been said on other threads, this year's graduating class was supposed to bring us back to the Promised Land^TM, but injuries, a defection to the pros, and failure to develop players as hoped blew it. Looking ahead my feelings would be different if I saw us bringing in a top-10 recruiting class. I'd even be happy with a top-3 or 4 in the ECAC or top-2 in the Ivies. But I think since Casey Jones left, our recruiting has fallen off.

One other point. Some years ago Shafer said the consistent goal for this program is to be a top-10 team every year. Since we're currently ranked 36th, by this standard this year has been an unmitigated disaster. Can someone tell us the last time we were in the top 10 at the end of the season?

It's hard to see a light at the end of the tunnel.

2006 would be the last time, I imagine? This program has been in a slow decline since then.

BearLover

Swampy

Trotsky

underskill
this convo is kinda ridiculous at this point--I'd say it'd be one thing if he was in his late 60s or 70s and it was a Lou Marsh/Tim Taylor situation where you can argue it's time for him to move on;here we're talking about what a mediocre 3 years, not a decade. And we all know Cornell isn't going to open the vault and hire a big name replacement anyways.

That said, I wouldn't mind a coaching staff shakeup of some sort--I wonder where Jamie Russell is these days.

Elmira.

Are there "big name" college hockey coaches? It's not exactly a Calipari-type gig. Those that are legends are so because of tenure more than anything else, and you don't rebuild a program around a 60-year old.

As has been said on other threads, this year's graduating class was supposed to bring us back to the Promised Land^TM, but injuries, a defection to the pros, and failure to develop players as hoped blew it. Looking ahead my feelings would be different if I saw us bringing in a top-10 recruiting class. I'd even be happy with a top-3 or 4 in the ECAC or top-2 in the Ivies. But I think since Casey Jones left, our recruiting has fallen off.

One other point. Some years ago Shafer said the consistent goal for this program is to be a top-10 team every year. Since we're currently ranked 36th, by this standard this year has been an unmitigated disaster. Can someone tell us the last time we were in the top 10 at the end of the season?

It's hard to see a light at the end of the tunnel.

2006 would be the last time, I imagine? This program has been in a slow decline since then.

2010.

Re recruiting, we are bringing in a large class, including 2 players who last year were drafted in the 3rd and 5th rounds. Obviously remains to be seen how it works out.

underskill
this convo is kinda ridiculous at this point--I'd say it'd be one thing if he was in his late 60s or 70s and it was a Lou Marsh/Tim Taylor situation where you can argue it's time for him to move on;here we're talking about what a mediocre 3 years, not a decade. And we all know Cornell isn't going to open the vault and hire a big name replacement anyways.

That said, I wouldn't mind a coaching staff shakeup of some sort--I wonder where Jamie Russell is these days.

In my opinion, 2014 was mediocre, 2013 and 2015 were bad. I think it's fair to judge a college coach on a 4-year rolling average, since that's how long most undergrads stay in Ithaca. During that time, we have a winning percentage of about 55%. I don't think I'd be happy with the team's/coach's performance unless the winning percentage starts moving up to about 60%-65% over four years (For reference, the years and corresponding win %'s are below).

2015 0.45
2014 0.61
2013 0.49
2012 0.64

Although I don't think this team has done well enough in the past 4 years, I don't know if Schafer's replacement would be better. Casey Jones, as an alum, might be interested but Clarkson had a 39% winning percentage this season (4-year rolling average of 45%). Maybe Topher will be coach one day, but who knows how good of coach he'd be? Schafer may be the best option just because he's the "devil we know".

KGR11
Although I don't think this team has done well enough in the past 4 years, I don't know if Schafer's replacement would be better. Casey Jones, as an alum, might be interested but Clarkson had a 39% winning percentage this season (4-year rolling average of 45%). Maybe Topher will be coach one day, but who knows how good of coach he'd be? Schafer may be the best option just because he's the "devil we know".

This attitude is precisely how once-great teams die. I am unwilling to settle for mediocre. Even if transition is painful and takes a few tries, I'd rather take a chance on greatness by rolling some weighted dice. The alternative is likely to be more of what we have seen: no offense, and the complete inability to compete against certain styles of offense under modern rules of play.

If Schafer hasn't figured it out by now, I highly doubt he's going to.

Trotsky

BearLover

Swampy

Trotsky

underskill
this convo is kinda ridiculous at this point--I'd say it'd be one thing if he was in his late 60s or 70s and it was a Lou Marsh/Tim Taylor situation where you can argue it's time for him to move on;here we're talking about what a mediocre 3 years, not a decade. And we all know Cornell isn't going to open the vault and hire a big name replacement anyways.

That said, I wouldn't mind a coaching staff shakeup of some sort--I wonder where Jamie Russell is these days.

Elmira.

Are there "big name" college hockey coaches? It's not exactly a Calipari-type gig. Those that are legends are so because of tenure more than anything else, and you don't rebuild a program around a 60-year old.

As has been said on other threads, this year's graduating class was supposed to bring us back to the Promised Land^TM, but injuries, a defection to the pros, and failure to develop players as hoped blew it. Looking ahead my feelings would be different if I saw us bringing in a top-10 recruiting class. I'd even be happy with a top-3 or 4 in the ECAC or top-2 in the Ivies. But I think since Casey Jones left, our recruiting has fallen off.

One other point. Some years ago Shafer said the consistent goal for this program is to be a top-10 team every year. Since we're currently ranked 36th, by this standard this year has been an unmitigated disaster. Can someone tell us the last time we were in the top 10 at the end of the season?

It's hard to see a light at the end of the tunnel.

2006 would be the last time, I imagine? This program has been in a slow decline since then.

2010.

And we were in the top 10 one week from the final poll in 2012. Also we were a goal away from the Final Four. Let's not overstate the length of the drought, as depressing and frustrating as the last three years have been.

Trotsky

BearLover

Swampy

Trotsky

underskill
this convo is kinda ridiculous at this point--I'd say it'd be one thing if he was in his late 60s or 70s and it was a Lou Marsh/Tim Taylor situation where you can argue it's time for him to move on;here we're talking about what a mediocre 3 years, not a decade. And we all know Cornell isn't going to open the vault and hire a big name replacement anyways.

That said, I wouldn't mind a coaching staff shakeup of some sort--I wonder where Jamie Russell is these days.

Elmira.

Are there "big name" college hockey coaches? It's not exactly a Calipari-type gig. Those that are legends are so because of tenure more than anything else, and you don't rebuild a program around a 60-year old.

As has been said on other threads, this year's graduating class was supposed to bring us back to the Promised Land^TM, but injuries, a defection to the pros, and failure to develop players as hoped blew it. Looking ahead my feelings would be different if I saw us bringing in a top-10 recruiting class. I'd even be happy with a top-3 or 4 in the ECAC or top-2 in the Ivies. But I think since Casey Jones left, our recruiting has fallen off.

One other point. Some years ago Shafer said the consistent goal for this program is to be a top-10 team every year. Since we're currently ranked 36th, by this standard this year has been an unmitigated disaster. Can someone tell us the last time we were in the top 10 at the end of the season?

It's hard to see a light at the end of the tunnel.

2006 would be the last time, I imagine? This program has been in a slow decline since then.

2010.

Thanks. The 2010 team was the last team we had that I would consider great, but I thought given the thwacking we took in the NCAA's that we'd finished outside the top 10.

EDIT: Was it really a great team, though? They could never compete with Yale...

ugarte
And we were in the top 10 one week from the final poll in 2012. Also we were a goal away from the Final Four. Let's not overstate the length of the drought, as depressing and frustrating as the last three years have been.

The drought has been only three years, but it's been indicative, I think, of a slow decline overall since the last remnants of the 2003 team left.

Now we're getting into a sort of semantic argument about the definition of greatness. Yale may have been better, but that's (in my opinion) not much of a reflection on our own quality, since Yale had a pretty solid team in their own right at that time.

Dafatone
Now we're getting into a sort of semantic argument about the definition of greatness. Yale may have been better, but that's (in my opinion) not much of a reflection on our own quality, since Yale had a pretty solid team in their own right at that time.

It's not the fact that Yale was better, though--we simply could not compete with them, at all. I don't think great teams should ever be so terribly, and consistently, outmatched.

ugarte
Let's not overstate the length of the drought, as depressing and frustrating as the last three years have been.

Also important is that the draft quality players are not drying up. It's hard to judge the quality of incoming commits, but NHL GMs' decisions aren't a bad approximation. We lose Lowry, McCarron and Ryan but gain Starrett and Angelo, the former being our highest pick since Riley Nash.

BearLover

Dafatone
Now we're getting into a sort of semantic argument about the definition of greatness. Yale may have been better, but that's (in my opinion) not much of a reflection on our own quality, since Yale had a pretty solid team in their own right at that time.

It's not the fact that Yale was better, though--we simply could not compete with them, at all. I don't think great teams should ever be so terribly, and consistently, outmatched.

And this is exactly my point. Basically, Schafer had and still has no answer for that style of offense, which is not really a good position to be in for a team "built from the net out". I said at the time, and I maintain, that the only reason Cornell won the ECACs in 2010 is because Brown (of all teams!) took Yale out in the QFs. Otherwise, a stomping was inevitable.

Edit: and here's my post from 2010.

Kyle Rose

BearLover

Dafatone
Now we're getting into a sort of semantic argument about the definition of greatness. Yale may have been better, but that's (in my opinion) not much of a reflection on our own quality, since Yale had a pretty solid team in their own right at that time.

It's not the fact that Yale was better, though--we simply could not compete with them, at all. I don't think great teams should ever be so terribly, and consistently, outmatched.

And this is exactly my point. Basically, Schafer had and still has no answer for that style of offense, which is not really a good position to be in for a team "built from the net out". I said at the time, and I maintain, that the only reason Cornell won the ECACs in 2010 is because Brown (of all teams!) took Yale out in the QFs. Otherwise, a stomping was inevitable.

Edit: and here's my post from 2010.

No one here would deny we were going to lose by 3+ goals to Yale if we matched up with them.

BearLover
No one here would deny we were going to lose by 3+ goals to Yale if we matched up with them.

We actually stayed with them during the RS. We lost at Ingalls in a game that was tied with 6 minutes to go, then lost in overtime at Lynah. Granted, in the latter game Iles had 52 saves.

Trotsky

ugarte
Let's not overstate the length of the drought, as depressing and frustrating as the last three years have been.

Also important is that the draft quality players are not drying up. It's hard to judge the quality of incoming commits, but NHL GMs' decisions aren't a bad approximation. We lose Lowry, McCarron and Ryan but gain Starrett and Angelo, the former being our highest pick since Riley Nash.

Was it Union last year that had like 0 or 1 draft pick, but a ton of older, less heralded players? Might've been Q's team two years ago.

I'm glad to see a draft pick over a non-pick, but there's something to be said for a 22 year old with more hockey experience than a 19 year old prospect.

Yes, those ages were pulled out of thin air, so I could be off-target with them.

Dafatone

Trotsky

ugarte
Let's not overstate the length of the drought, as depressing and frustrating as the last three years have been.

Also important is that the draft quality players are not drying up. It's hard to judge the quality of incoming commits, but NHL GMs' decisions aren't a bad approximation. We lose Lowry, McCarron and Ryan but gain Starrett and Angelo, the former being our highest pick since Riley Nash.

Was it Union last year that had like 0 or 1 draft pick, but a ton of older, less heralded players? Might've been Q's team two years ago.

I'm glad to see a draft pick over a non-pick, but there's something to be said for a 22 year old with more hockey experience than a 19 year old prospect.

Yes, those ages were pulled out of thin air, so I could be off-target with them.

Everyone on Union's national championship team had an underwater mortgage and an ex-wife.

Dafatone

Trotsky

ugarte
Let's not overstate the length of the drought, as depressing and frustrating as the last three years have been.

Also important is that the draft quality players are not drying up. It's hard to judge the quality of incoming commits, but NHL GMs' decisions aren't a bad approximation. We lose Lowry, McCarron and Ryan but gain Starrett and Angelo, the former being our highest pick since Riley Nash.

Was it Union last year that had like 0 or 1 draft pick, but a ton of older, less heralded players? Might've been Q's team two years ago.

I'm glad to see a draft pick over a non-pick, but there's something to be said for a 22 year old with more hockey experience than a 19 year old prospect.

Yes, those ages were pulled out of thin air, so I could be off-target with them.

A 22 year old freshman gives you a lot more certainty but also much less room for growth. The 19 year old is likely to have a higher ceiling though you don't know whether he will reach that ceiling. If you aspire to being a top flight team the path is a lot clearer with top flight prospects. But obviously it's not certain.

KeithK

Dafatone

Trotsky

ugarte
Let's not overstate the length of the drought, as depressing and frustrating as the last three years have been.

Also important is that the draft quality players are not drying up. It's hard to judge the quality of incoming commits, but NHL GMs' decisions aren't a bad approximation. We lose Lowry, McCarron and Ryan but gain Starrett and Angelo, the former being our highest pick since Riley Nash.

Was it Union last year that had like 0 or 1 draft pick, but a ton of older, less heralded players? Might've been Q's team two years ago.

I'm glad to see a draft pick over a non-pick, but there's something to be said for a 22 year old with more hockey experiencZe than a 19 year old prospect.

Yes, those ages were pulled out of thin air, so I could be off-target with them.

A 22 year old freshman gives you a lot more certainty but also much less room for growth. The 19 year old is likely to have a higher ceiling though you don't know whether he will reach that ceiling. If you aspire to being a top flight team the path is a lot clearer with top flight prospects. But obviously it's not certain.

Sometimes it doesn't matter if they reach that ceiling while still in college. Dryden won 1 NC, but he continued to improve as a pro. Johnny Gaudreau scored only 44 points his freshman year, when BC WON the NC. He scored 51 & 80 the next two years, when BC did not.

I think a big problem the past few years has been lack of balance. We've had a bunch of draft picks, but even more guys who aren't particularly fast or who just aren't scoring threats.

Swampy
I think a big problem the past few years has been lack of balance. We've had a bunch of draft picks, but even more guys who aren't particularly fast or who just aren't scoring threats.

I think that sums it up and it isn't going to change. Schafer seems to dislike fast guys who can score, otherwise he'd be recruiting them instead of loading up on power forwards. Our draft picks are defenders and power forwards and will continue to be as long as Schafer is the coach. The two drafted forwards are 6-4 and 6-5 and one them missed nearly the entire season with injury. There are a couple of smaller forwards coming in who will be converted into grinder/nats (not that there's anything wrong with having some of those guys on the squad). Hopefully some of these guys will surprise me and make me eat cold Cayuga crow.

I find Schafer's most recent comments to be depressing and have convinced me he needs to go after his contract expires (actually sooner, but Cornell doesn't like to eat contracts). I'm glad he recognized the need to increase scoring and chose to tweak his approach. To hear him then say that it failed and he was returning to the very approach that had led him to conclude he needed to increase scoring in the first place is cause for surrender (not my tickets, just my hope for his remaining tenure).

According to College Hockey News, 3 of our recruits for 2015 are small forwards. Given they are listed at 160-175 pounds, doubt whether they were recruited to be grinders. We need more speed and skill. Hope they can help provide it.

I guess I just don't get it. Schafer's teams were pretty consistently good over the first 19 years, he made a change in the 20th years and it failed to produce the desired results in a historic way. So the man wants to go back to what had always been successful and everybody is going ape shit. I say good decision and hopefully the team will reap the benefits.

What hasn't been mentioned is that the decline in the number of wins is directly related to the assistant coach turnover over the last 10 years. The assistant coaches are in many ways more crucial to the development and on ice performance than the head coach. Maybe a change is needed in that area to revitalize the program ?

Bottom line, it's Schafer's program and he will do what he feels necessary to fix the problem. If it works, great for Cornell, if it doesn't the University has a decision to make. In either case Mike has proved to be one the very best Cornell has ever had behind the bench.

ithacat
Schafer seems to dislike fast guys who can score, otherwise he'd be recruiting them instead of loading up on power forwards.

Or, fast guys who can score don't want to come play in a defense first system where they won't score as much as they could elsewhere. I'm sure Schafer would welcome a few fast guys who could score who were also willing to commit to sound defense at the expense of their own numbers.

Chris '03

ithacat
Schafer seems to dislike fast guys who can score, otherwise he'd be recruiting them instead of loading up on power forwards.

Or, fast guys who can score don't want to come play in a defense first system where they won't score as much as they could elsewhere. I'm sure Schafer would welcome a few fast guys who could score who were also willing to commit to sound defense at the expense of their own numbers.

The CW is that we've seen guys like this either leave (Romano, Milo) or decommit (guys I should remember but can't).

Btw Milo transferred to UVM, where he was ultimately dismissed from the team.

Trotsky

Chris '03

ithacat
Schafer seems to dislike fast guys who can score, otherwise he'd be recruiting them instead of loading up on power forwards.

Or, fast guys who can score don't want to come play in a defense first system where they won't score as much as they could elsewhere. I'm sure Schafer would welcome a few fast guys who could score who were also willing to commit to sound defense at the expense of their own numbers.

The CW is that we've seen guys like this either leave (Romano, Milo) or decommit (guys I should remember but can't).

Nobody lost the puck trying to go to the net alone against four defenders like Romano.

Cop at Lynah

What hasn't been mentioned is that the decline in the number of wins is directly related to the assistant coach turnover over the last 10 years. The assistant coaches are in many ways more crucial to the development and on ice performance than the head coach. Maybe a change is needed in that area to revitalize the program ?

Well, I did mention Casey Jones in connection with recruiting. The turnover in assistant coaches is a bit remarkable given the team's relative lack of outstanding success. Assistant coaches get poached for HC positions when a team wins big.

Still at the very least, I hope Schafer brings in an assistant for next season who has been associated with (#1) a program that's won at a very high level and (#2) who has demonstrated ability to coach good offense.

In pro football, a HC in Schafer's position will often replace the offensive coordinator. That's what I'm advocating for at this point.

Dafatone

Trotsky

Chris '03

ithacat
Schafer seems to dislike fast guys who can score, otherwise he'd be recruiting them instead of loading up on power forwards.

Or, fast guys who can score don't want to come play in a defense first system where they won't score as much as they could elsewhere. I'm sure Schafer would welcome a few fast guys who could score who were also willing to commit to sound defense at the expense of their own numbers.

The CW is that we've seen guys like this either leave (Romano, Milo) or decommit (guys I should remember but can't).

Nobody lost the puck trying to go to the net alone against four defenders like Romano.

You didn't see Kent Manderville as a freshman, did you?

Swampy

Cop at Lynah

What hasn't been mentioned is that the decline in the number of wins is directly related to the assistant coach turnover over the last 10 years. The assistant coaches are in many ways more crucial to the development and on ice performance than the head coach. Maybe a change is needed in that area to revitalize the program ?

Well, I did mention Casey Jones in connection with recruiting. The turnover in assistant coaches is a bit remarkable given the team's relative lack of outstanding success. Assistant coaches get poached for HC positions when a team wins big.

Still at the very least, I hope Schafer brings in an assistant for next season who has been associated with (#1) a program that's won at a very high level and (#2) who has demonstrated ability to coach good offense.

In pro football, a HC in Schafer's position will often replace the offensive coordinator. That's what I'm advocating for at this point.

In another thread, I asked what could possibly be so different that Harvard could go from a perennial sub-.400 team to being in the conversation for NCAA contenders. Given his track record, I wanted Teddy D. to be around forever. But this was brought up in a conversation: [gocrimson.com]

RichH

Swampy

Cop at Lynah

What hasn't been mentioned is that the decline in the number of wins is directly related to the assistant coach turnover over the last 10 years. The assistant coaches are in many ways more crucial to the development and on ice performance than the head coach. Maybe a change is needed in that area to revitalize the program ?

Well, I did mention Casey Jones in connection with recruiting. The turnover in assistant coaches is a bit remarkable given the team's relative lack of outstanding success. Assistant coaches get poached for HC positions when a team wins big.

Still at the very least, I hope Schafer brings in an assistant for next season who has been associated with (#1) a program that's won at a very high level and (#2) who has demonstrated ability to coach good offense.

In pro football, a HC in Schafer's position will often replace the offensive coordinator. That's what I'm advocating for at this point.

In another thread, I asked what could possibly be so different that Harvard could go from a perennial sub-.400 team to being in the conversation for NCAA contenders. Given his track record, I wanted Teddy D. to be around forever. But this was brought up in a conversation: [gocrimson.com]

Topher may have been a skilled offensive player, but having a 5'4 guy instruct 6'5 guys hasn't worked so well. And why did Schafer make Syer, another defensive specialist, his head assistant? Why not a real offensive guy?

Kyle Rose

KGR11
Although I don't think this team has done well enough in the past 4 years, I don't know if Schafer's replacement would be better. Casey Jones, as an alum, might be interested but Clarkson had a 39% winning percentage this season (4-year rolling average of 45%). Maybe Topher will be coach one day, but who knows how good of coach he'd be? Schafer may be the best option just because he's the "devil we know".

This attitude is precisely how once-great teams die. I am unwilling to settle for mediocre. Even if transition is painful and takes a few tries, I'd rather take a chance on greatness by rolling some weighted dice. The alternative is likely to be more of what we have seen: no offense, and the complete inability to compete against certain styles of offense under modern rules of play.

If Schafer hasn't figured it out by now, I highly doubt he's going to.

That's a fair point. When you say a few tries, do you mean one coach gets a few years to make the team his own, or multiple coaches?

I think there are two scenarios where I'd be convinced that Schafer can't figure it out and we need a coaching change:
1. We have a sub-.500 season next year.
2. We don't make it to the NCAAs in the next two years (a repeat of 2014 could be considered a positive step towards greatness or part of the oscillation that we've seen in the past 4 years, hence the requirement for a second year).

Disclaimer: I started watching Cornell hockey in 2007-2008. I think my expectations are rooted in how the team has played since then. In that sense, I may be biased towards Schafer because I haven't seen his best team, and therefore, I haven't seen the height from which he's fallen.

BearLover
Topher may have been a skilled offensive player, but having a 5'4 guy instruct 6'5 guys hasn't worked so well.

Is his height really the issue? I'd think the bigger issue is that he was coached by Schafer for four years, hardly a recipe for radical new ideas.

BearLover
Topher may have been a skilled offensive player, but having a 5'4 guy instruct 6'5 guys hasn't worked so well. And why did Schafer make Syer, another defensive specialist, his head assistant? Why not a real offensive guy?

It is my understanding that Schafer coaches the forwards and the PP. Regardless of the assistants (Casey Jones was an offensive guy), the assistants coach the defense and the PK.

And our recruiting pipelines have clearly changed. We currently have 2 returning players from the BCHL, and our strong years featured about half the roster being from that league. I feel that the entire coaching staff has a responsibility in the recruiting efforts. The Brekke/Russell era brought forth some great talent.

KGR11

Kyle Rose

KGR11
Although I don't think this team has done well enough in the past 4 years, I don't know if Schafer's replacement would be better. Casey Jones, as an alum, might be interested but Clarkson had a 39% winning percentage this season (4-year rolling average of 45%). Maybe Topher will be coach one day, but who knows how good of coach he'd be? Schafer may be the best option just because he's the "devil we know".

This attitude is precisely how once-great teams die. I am unwilling to settle for mediocre. Even if transition is painful and takes a few tries, I'd rather take a chance on greatness by rolling some weighted dice. The alternative is likely to be more of what we have seen: no offense, and the complete inability to compete against certain styles of offense under modern rules of play.

If Schafer hasn't figured it out by now, I highly doubt he's going to.

That's a fair point. When you say a few tries, do you mean one coach gets a few years to make the team his own, or multiple coaches?

I think there are two scenarios where I'd be convinced that Schafer can't figure it out and we need a coaching change:
1. We have a sub-.500 season next year.
2. We don't make it to the NCAAs in the next two years (a repeat of 2014 could be considered a positive step towards greatness or part of the oscillation that we've seen in the past 4 years, hence the requirement for a second year).

Disclaimer: I started watching Cornell hockey in 2007-2008. I think my expectations are rooted in how the team has played since then. In that sense, I may be biased towards Schafer because I haven't seen his best team, and therefore, I haven't seen the height from which he's fallen.

I think the greatest source of disagreement on this issue is what our expectations are/should be. We don't actually know what Cornell Hockey can realistically aspire to be, so we have to base our hopes on the evidence that is available to us, and adjust accordingly. I will quote something I wrote a few months ago:

BearLover
Schafer apologists' arguments have always been predicated upon the notion that with Cornell's academic and scholarship restrictions, it would be unfair to hold the team to a higher standard than being successful in its own conference and hoping to make noise at the national level. Two things have changed: one, Cornell is no longer especially successful in its own conference; many teams have passed us by. Two, the notion that Cornell cannot be an elite national program due to its restrictions has been proven invalid: Yale won it all and has been nationally competitive for years now, and Harvard is among the best few teams in the nation thus far this year. That is to say, there was nothing truly exceptional about Cornell's success over the past decade or so.

This team is not good. It has not been very good for a number of years. The Lynah atmosphere is nothing like it used to be. I think it's about time to move on.

Can Cornell ever be BC? Probably not. Can it be a top 10 team every year, as Schafer himself had hoped? Maybe. Can it win the national championship? Absolutely. Yale is the new benchmark against which we must measure our success. They have the same academic and scholarship restrictions we do, and yet their last eight years have been better than Schafer's best eight years. There is no reason Cornell cannot be that successful. Can a modern Schafer-coached Cornell team be that successful? It's looking more and more like the answer is No. Will a new coach be that successful? Also probably not, but at least there's a chance...

pfibiger

BearLover
Topher may have been a skilled offensive player, but having a 5'4 guy instruct 6'5 guys hasn't worked so well. And why did Schafer make Syer, another defensive specialist, his head assistant? Why not a real offensive guy?

It is my understanding that Schafer coaches the forwards and the PP. Regardless of the assistants (Casey Jones was an offensive guy), the assistants coach the defense and the PK.

Casey Jones coached the defense and PK? I've understood Schafer to have coached the offense/PP since Syer came aboard,but I thought that was only because Syer was a defensive specialist.

RichH
And our recruiting pipelines have clearly changed. We currently have 2 returning players from the BCHL, and our strong years featured about half the roster being from that league. I feel that the entire coaching staff has a responsibility in the recruiting efforts. The Brekke/Russell era brought forth some great talent.

The strengths of the junior leagues change too. The USHL, to my limited understanding, is a much deeper and stronger league than it was during the Nanaimo Clipper Little Red days.

Chris '03

RichH
And our recruiting pipelines have clearly changed. We currently have 2 returning players from the BCHL, and our strong years featured about half the roster being from that league. I feel that the entire coaching staff has a responsibility in the recruiting efforts. The Brekke/Russell era brought forth some great talent.

The strengths of the junior leagues change too. The USHL, to my limited understanding, is a much deeper and stronger league than it was during the Nanaimo Clipper Little Red days.

Excellent point. I don't claim to be Big Red Puckhead or Bob Norton, and there's HUGE piles of complexity to the art & science of the recruiting process, so I don't know. But I would love to have some great recruiting classes lined up.

A point I heard brought up on a recent trip to Ithaca was that the staff may be leaning towards adding a couple slots to the roster to cover injuries. Cornell has been running with a fairly short roster (15 F, 8 D) recently. By comparison, Harvard's roster has 17 F, 11 D. Perhaps this has been due to fears that it is harder to recruit to a larger team because prospects fear fighting for ice time. That doesn't really make sense to me, since the blue chippers would not be on the bubble and the guys who would be are essentially 0 WAR fungibles.

BearLover

KGR11

Kyle Rose

KGR11
Although I don't think this team has done well enough in the past 4 years, I don't know if Schafer's replacement would be better. Casey Jones, as an alum, might be interested but Clarkson had a 39% winning percentage this season (4-year rolling average of 45%). Maybe Topher will be coach one day, but who knows how good of coach he'd be? Schafer may be the best option just because he's the "devil we know".

This attitude is precisely how once-great teams die. I am unwilling to settle for mediocre. Even if transition is painful and takes a few tries, I'd rather take a chance on greatness by rolling some weighted dice. The alternative is likely to be more of what we have seen: no offense, and the complete inability to compete against certain styles of offense under modern rules of play.

If Schafer hasn't figured it out by now, I highly doubt he's going to.

That's a fair point. When you say a few tries, do you mean one coach gets a few years to make the team his own, or multiple coaches?

I think there are two scenarios where I'd be convinced that Schafer can't figure it out and we need a coaching change:
1. We have a sub-.500 season next year.
2. We don't make it to the NCAAs in the next two years (a repeat of 2014 could be considered a positive step towards greatness or part of the oscillation that we've seen in the past 4 years, hence the requirement for a second year).

Disclaimer: I started watching Cornell hockey in 2007-2008. I think my expectations are rooted in how the team has played since then. In that sense, I may be biased towards Schafer because I haven't seen his best team, and therefore, I haven't seen the height from which he's fallen.

I think the greatest source of disagreement on this issue is what our expectations are/should be. We don't actually know what Cornell Hockey can realistically aspire to be, so we have to base our hopes on the evidence that is available to us, and adjust accordingly. I will quote something I wrote a few months ago:

BearLover
Schafer apologists' arguments have always been predicated upon the notion that with Cornell's academic and scholarship restrictions, it would be unfair to hold the team to a higher standard than being successful in its own conference and hoping to make noise at the national level. Two things have changed: one, Cornell is no longer especially successful in its own conference; many teams have passed us by. Two, the notion that Cornell cannot be an elite national program due to its restrictions has been proven invalid: Yale won it all and has been nationally competitive for years now, and Harvard is among the best few teams in the nation thus far this year. That is to say, there was nothing truly exceptional about Cornell's success over the past decade or so.

This team is not good. It has not been very good for a number of years. The Lynah atmosphere is nothing like it used to be. I think it's about time to move on.

Can Cornell ever be BC? Probably not. Can it be a top 10 team every year, as Schafer himself had hoped? Maybe. Can it win the national championship? Absolutely. Yale is the new benchmark against which we must measure our success. They have the same academic and scholarship restrictions we do, and yet their last eight years have been better than Schafer's best eight years. There is no reason Cornell cannot be that successful. Can a modern Schafer-coached Cornell team be that successful? It's looking more and more like the answer is No. Will a new coach be that successful? Also probably not, but at least there's a chance...

That's not quite correct. H, Y & P, with their policy on tuition, have a better ability to give students a "free ride" without all the loans that Cornell students may need to take. We try and match them, but I doubt that we always can.

Jim Hyla

BearLover

KGR11

Kyle Rose

KGR11
Although I don't think this team has done well enough in the past 4 years, I don't know if Schafer's replacement would be better. Casey Jones, as an alum, might be interested but Clarkson had a 39% winning percentage this season (4-year rolling average of 45%). Maybe Topher will be coach one day, but who knows how good of coach he'd be? Schafer may be the best option just because he's the "devil we know".

This attitude is precisely how once-great teams die. I am unwilling to settle for mediocre. Even if transition is painful and takes a few tries, I'd rather take a chance on greatness by rolling some weighted dice. The alternative is likely to be more of what we have seen: no offense, and the complete inability to compete against certain styles of offense under modern rules of play.

If Schafer hasn't figured it out by now, I highly doubt he's going to.

That's a fair point. When you say a few tries, do you mean one coach gets a few years to make the team his own, or multiple coaches?

I think there are two scenarios where I'd be convinced that Schafer can't figure it out and we need a coaching change:
1. We have a sub-.500 season next year.
2. We don't make it to the NCAAs in the next two years (a repeat of 2014 could be considered a positive step towards greatness or part of the oscillation that we've seen in the past 4 years, hence the requirement for a second year).

Disclaimer: I started watching Cornell hockey in 2007-2008. I think my expectations are rooted in how the team has played since then. In that sense, I may be biased towards Schafer because I haven't seen his best team, and therefore, I haven't seen the height from which he's fallen.

I think the greatest source of disagreement on this issue is what our expectations are/should be. We don't actually know what Cornell Hockey can realistically aspire to be, so we have to base our hopes on the evidence that is available to us, and adjust accordingly. I will quote something I wrote a few months ago:

BearLover
Schafer apologists' arguments have always been predicated upon the notion that with Cornell's academic and scholarship restrictions, it would be unfair to hold the team to a higher standard than being successful in its own conference and hoping to make noise at the national level. Two things have changed: one, Cornell is no longer especially successful in its own conference; many teams have passed us by. Two, the notion that Cornell cannot be an elite national program due to its restrictions has been proven invalid: Yale won it all and has been nationally competitive for years now, and Harvard is among the best few teams in the nation thus far this year. That is to say, there was nothing truly exceptional about Cornell's success over the past decade or so.

This team is not good. It has not been very good for a number of years. The Lynah atmosphere is nothing like it used to be. I think it's about time to move on.

Can Cornell ever be BC? Probably not. Can it be a top 10 team every year, as Schafer himself had hoped? Maybe. Can it win the national championship? Absolutely. Yale is the new benchmark against which we must measure our success. They have the same academic and scholarship restrictions we do, and yet their last eight years have been better than Schafer's best eight years. There is no reason Cornell cannot be that successful. Can a modern Schafer-coached Cornell team be that successful? It's looking more and more like the answer is No. Will a new coach be that successful? Also probably not, but at least there's a chance...

That's not quite correct. H, Y & P, with their policy on tuition, have a better ability to give students a "free ride" without all the loans that Cornell students may need to take. We try and match them, but I doubt that we always can.

I thought we changed that a few years ago? H, Y, and P also have slightly higher academic requirements.

Trotsky
A point I heard brought up on a recent trip to Ithaca was that the staff may be leaning towards adding a couple slots to the roster to cover injuries. Cornell has been running with a fairly short roster (15 F, 8 D) recently. By comparison, Harvard's roster has 17 F, 11 D. Perhaps this has been due to fears that it is harder to recruit to a larger team because prospects fear fighting for ice time. That doesn't really make sense to me, since the blue chippers would not be on the bubble and the guys who would be are essentially 0 WAR fungibles.

Be interesting to see how that works out. We've had recruited guys leave or disappear (Kevin Cole, Jarred Seymour, Mathieu Brisson) over what I can only imagine was total lack of visibility to any PT. I wonder how we'll do with kids even further down the chart? Maybe there'll be some kids recruited with a high AI who have an understanding, like a 3rd goalie, that the only opportunity they'll have is in an injury crisis.

BearLover

Jim Hyla

BearLover

KGR11

Kyle Rose

KGR11
Although I don't think this team has done well enough in the past 4 years, I don't know if Schafer's replacement would be better. Casey Jones, as an alum, might be interested but Clarkson had a 39% winning percentage this season (4-year rolling average of 45%). Maybe Topher will be coach one day, but who knows how good of coach he'd be? Schafer may be the best option just because he's the "devil we know".

This attitude is precisely how once-great teams die. I am unwilling to settle for mediocre. Even if transition is painful and takes a few tries, I'd rather take a chance on greatness by rolling some weighted dice. The alternative is likely to be more of what we have seen: no offense, and the complete inability to compete against certain styles of offense under modern rules of play.

If Schafer hasn't figured it out by now, I highly doubt he's going to.

That's a fair point. When you say a few tries, do you mean one coach gets a few years to make the team his own, or multiple coaches?

I think there are two scenarios where I'd be convinced that Schafer can't figure it out and we need a coaching change:
1. We have a sub-.500 season next year.
2. We don't make it to the NCAAs in the next two years (a repeat of 2014 could be considered a positive step towards greatness or part of the oscillation that we've seen in the past 4 years, hence the requirement for a second year).

Disclaimer: I started watching Cornell hockey in 2007-2008. I think my expectations are rooted in how the team has played since then. In that sense, I may be biased towards Schafer because I haven't seen his best team, and therefore, I haven't seen the height from which he's fallen.

I think the greatest source of disagreement on this issue is what our expectations are/should be. We don't actually know what Cornell Hockey can realistically aspire to be, so we have to base our hopes on the evidence that is available to us, and adjust accordingly. I will quote something I wrote a few months ago:

BearLover
Schafer apologists' arguments have always been predicated upon the notion that with Cornell's academic and scholarship restrictions, it would be unfair to hold the team to a higher standard than being successful in its own conference and hoping to make noise at the national level. Two things have changed: one, Cornell is no longer especially successful in its own conference; many teams have passed us by. Two, the notion that Cornell cannot be an elite national program due to its restrictions has been proven invalid: Yale won it all and has been nationally competitive for years now, and Harvard is among the best few teams in the nation thus far this year. That is to say, there was nothing truly exceptional about Cornell's success over the past decade or so.

This team is not good. It has not been very good for a number of years. The Lynah atmosphere is nothing like it used to be. I think it's about time to move on.

Can Cornell ever be BC? Probably not. Can it be a top 10 team every year, as Schafer himself had hoped? Maybe. Can it win the national championship? Absolutely. Yale is the new benchmark against which we must measure our success. They have the same academic and scholarship restrictions we do, and yet their last eight years have been better than Schafer's best eight years. There is no reason Cornell cannot be that successful. Can a modern Schafer-coached Cornell team be that successful? It's looking more and more like the answer is No. Will a new coach be that successful? Also probably not, but at least there's a chance...

That's not quite correct. H, Y & P, with their policy on tuition, have a better ability to give students a "free ride" without all the loans that Cornell students may need to take. We try and match them, but I doubt that we always can.

I thought we changed that a few years ago? H, Y, and P also have slightly higher academic requirements.

Yeah, and they also have slightly better reputations and slightly better lifetime earnings expectations.

Look, within the Ivies, Cornell's main "structural" recruiting advantages are its tradition, its broad diversity of educational opportunities, its demographic composition (Schafer once said he pitches Cornell's demographics because they're much closer to the national profile), and for some recruits its location. [Ithaca is a lot more like Saskatchewan or Alberta than Boston is.]

Schafer did a great job reviving Cornell's tradition and Lynah's reputation as the toughest home advantage, but the last several years have severely hurt this advantage. How many potential recruits come to Lynah these days and immediately sign up because they're so impressed by the fans' enthusiasm?

As Rich's link to GoCrimson illustrates, I'd also point out that being located in New England means a HC can draw assistants from numerous places without requiring them to uproot their families. Besides Boston, Harvard can draw from New Hampshire, Providence, and maybe even Hartford or Amherst. Yale can draw from New Haven, Providence, Hartford, and maybe Amherst. Etc. This too is an advantage in terms of both hiring assistants and recruiting player who want to play in front of their friends and families.

There's also the "see the world factor." Andy Isles may have wanted to stay in little Ithaca, but Dustin Brown did not. A player from Massachusetts could play at Yale and be far away from home to "get away," while still being close enough to have the family drop in to watch home games (and several away games) or run into Manhattan for an evening during the off-season. You can do this in Ithaca too, but with much greater difficulty.

Unfortunately, the days when being that much closer to Canada was a big advantage are over.

ithacat

Swampy
I think a big problem the past few years has been lack of balance. We've had a bunch of draft picks, but even more guys who aren't particularly fast or who just aren't scoring threats.

I think that sums it up and it isn't going to change. Schafer seems to dislike fast guys who can score, otherwise he'd be recruiting them instead of loading up on power forwards. Our draft picks are defenders and power forwards and will continue to be as long as Schafer is the coach. The two drafted forwards are 6-4 and 6-5 and one them missed nearly the entire season with injury. There are a couple of smaller forwards coming in who will be converted into grinder/nats (not that there's anything wrong with having some of those guys on the squad). Hopefully some of these guys will surprise me and make me eat cold Cayuga crow.

I find Schafer's most recent comments to be depressing and have convinced me he needs to go after his contract expires (actually sooner, but Cornell doesn't like to eat contracts). I'm glad he recognized the need to increase scoring and chose to tweak his approach. To hear him then say that it failed and he was returning to the very approach that had led him to conclude he needed to increase scoring in the first place is cause for surrender (not my tickets, just my hope for his remaining tenure).

Chris Heisenberg lists Angelo, our highest ranked USHL player, as 56th in the USHL. Yale has the 27th & 49th ahead of us, and Harvard has the 53rd. Interestingly, Heisenberg lists Beau Starrett as also playing in the USHL, but I can't find him on Heisenberg's USHL page. OTOH, this page reinforces what Ithacat said.

Swampy

There's also the "see the world factor." Andy Isles may have wanted to stay in little Ithaca, but Dustin Brown did not.

I take your point, however, this isn't the best example...they each left Ithaca after their Freshman year. They just chose different paths. If Andy had been 6-2 or 6-3 I'm not sure he would have chosen the collegiate path. Additionally, he was very close to going to Harvard.

Cop at Lynah
[Schafer] could give a rats ass about what any of us think as he goes about doing whatever it is he is going to do to try and change things.

+1

Cop at Lynah
I guess I just don't get it. Schafer's teams were pretty consistently good over the first 19 years, he made a change in the 20th years and it failed to produce the desired results in a historic way. So the man wants to go back to what had always been successful and everybody is going ape shit. I say good decision and hopefully the team will reap the benefits.

What hasn't been mentioned is that the decline in the number of wins is directly related to the assistant coach turnover over the last 10 years. The assistant coaches are in many ways more crucial to the development and on ice performance than the head coach. Maybe a change is needed in that area to revitalize the program ?

Bottom line, it's Schafer's program and he will do what he feels necessary to fix the problem. If it works, great for Cornell, if it doesn't the University has a decision to make. In either case Mike has proved to be one the very best Cornell has ever had behind the bench.

His teams are almost always good defensively. That's not the issue. In the last six seasons we've made the NCAAs twice. Those two trips to the tourney were the only times during those six years that the offense ranked in the top 25 nationally. The other four years saw his offense rank outside the top 40. From 2009-2010 the team has gone from averaging 3.15 gpg (19th) to 1.84 (54th) and it's been a steady decline.

You raise a fair point about the assistants. Maybe...

Cornell has also been unlucky with recruits in the past few years--M. McCarron, De Jong, and Hudson all decommitted/couldn't get in (and maybe some others I'm forgetting). All three went on to be drafted, McCarron in the first round. We've also had players leave at inopportune times (Hudon (5th round pick), Brisson, Lewis). If they had come/stayed, our fortunes may have been different. To be fair, though, I'm sure things like this have happened in past years too.

EDIT: Added Hudon

BearLover
Cornell has also been unlucky with recruits in the past few years--M. McCarron, De Jong, and Hudson all decommitted/couldn't get in (and maybe some others I'm forgetting).

Matt Cimetta, Philipe Hudon and Stephen Miller were also commits who disappeared.

Not counting M. McCarron, that's five guys over a very short period who decommitted. Would love to know whether they were just using Cornell as a safety in some other career plan, or whether something happened to turn them away.

They've had varying success since:

Nolan De Jong (Michigan)

Woody Hudson (SLU)

Matt Cimetta (seems to have left hockey)

Philippe Hudon (Concordia)

Stephen Miller (Canisius)

Trotsky

BearLover
Cornell has also been unlucky with recruits in the past few years--M. McCarron, De Jong, and Hudson all decommitted/couldn't get in (and maybe some others I'm forgetting).

Matt Cimetta, Philipe Hudon and Stephen Miller were also commits who disappeared.

Not counting M. McCarron, that's five guys over a very short period who decommitted. Would love to know whether they were just using Cornell as a safety in some other career plan, or whether something happened to turn them away.

They've had varying success since:

Nolan De Jong (Michigan)

Woody Hudson (SLU)

Matt Cimetta (Sarnia)

Philippe Hudon (Concordia)

Stephen Miller (Canisius)

Wow, completely forgot about Hudon, who was also drafted, and was on campus for a few months before he left for personal reasons.

BearLover
Cornell has also been unlucky with recruits in the past few years--M. McCarron, De Jong, and Hudson all decommitted/couldn't get in (and maybe some others I'm forgetting). All three went on to be drafted, McCarron in the first round. We've also had players leave at inopportune times (Hudon (5th round pick), Brisson, Lewis). If they had come/stayed, our fortunes may have been different. To be fair, though, I'm sure things like this have happened in past years too.

EDIT: Added Hudon

Another fairly recent decommit was Mark Scheifele, who became a 1st round draft choice of the Winnipeg Jets

scoop85

BearLover
Cornell has also been unlucky with recruits in the past few years--M. McCarron, De Jong, and Hudson all decommitted/couldn't get in (and maybe some others I'm forgetting). All three went on to be drafted, McCarron in the first round. We've also had players leave at inopportune times (Hudon (5th round pick), Brisson, Lewis). If they had come/stayed, our fortunes may have been different. To be fair, though, I'm sure things like this have happened in past years too.

EDIT: Added Hudon

Another fairly recent decommit was Mark Scheifele, who became a 1st round draft choice of the Winnipeg Jets

He tore up the OHL. That there would have been a goalscorer.

Thanks, Saginaw.

Hypothetically speaking:

If Mike was to leave, would our HC position be at least a lateral move for Dan Ratushny if he was offered the job? He's currently HC in Austrian league if I'm not mistaken.

I'm very unfamiliar with pay scale and such in any of the European leagues. So please excuse my ignorance. Haha

toddlose
Hypothetically speaking:

If Mike was to leave, would our HC position be at least a lateral move for Dan Ratushny if he was offered the job? He's currently HC in Austrian league if I'm not mistaken.

I'm very unfamiliar with pay scale and such in any of the European leagues. So please excuse my ignorance. Haha

Who knows if he can recruit.

Jim Hyla

toddlose
Hypothetically speaking:

If Mike was to leave, would our HC position be at least a lateral move for Dan Ratushny if he was offered the job? He's currently HC in Austrian league if I'm not mistaken.

I'm very unfamiliar with pay scale and such in any of the European leagues. So please excuse my ignorance. Haha

Who knows if he can recruit.

I'd rather take a chance than keep going down the road we're on.

Jim Hyla

toddlose
Hypothetically speaking:

If Mike was to leave, would our HC position be at least a lateral move for Dan Ratushny if he was offered the job? He's currently HC in Austrian league if I'm not mistaken.

I'm very unfamiliar with pay scale and such in any of the European leagues. So please excuse my ignorance. Haha

Who knows if he can recruit.

Maybe the recruiting comes from the assistants.

Trotsky

BearLover
Cornell has also been unlucky with recruits in the past few years--M. McCarron, De Jong, and Hudson all decommitted/couldn't get in (and maybe some others I'm forgetting).

Matt Cimetta, Philipe Hudon and Stephen Miller were also commits who disappeared.

Not counting M. McCarron, that's five guys over a very short period who decommitted. Would love to know whether they were just using Cornell as a safety in some other career plan, or whether something happened to turn them away.

They've had varying success since:

Nolan De Jong (Michigan)

Woody Hudson (SLU)

Matt Cimetta (seems to have left hockey)

Philippe Hudon (Concordia)

Stephen Miller (Canisius)

It's really hard to say if this is an unusually large number relative to recent years, if this is pretty normal and information about recruits is just better than it used to be, or if this is more than in the past but fully expected given how many recruits commit early.

Moved to 15–16 thread.

For all of us saying it's unlikely that Cornell can find someone better than Schafer, it's worth noting that Union, a mediocre hockey school in the middle of nowhere, was able to find two coaches in the past twelve years that won NCAA Championships. It's definitely possible...

BearLover
For all of us saying it's unlikely that Cornell can find someone better than Schafer, it's worth noting that Union, a mediocre hockey school in the middle of nowhere, was able to find two coaches in the past twelve years that won NCAA Championships. It's definitely possible...

<devils advocate>

But how many other coaching changes were made in the same time period that resulted in worse performances? What are the odds?

</devils advocate>

Perhaps it is time to let the Union administraton chose the next Cornell men's hockey coach.....

redice
Perhaps it is time to let the Union administraton chose the next Cornell men's hockey coach.....

Ya, that'll work! What could possibly go wrong?