Future Coaching?

Poll

What will happen?

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

I would like - Schafer to stay; I predict - Schafer to stay	49		63%
I would like - Schafer to go; I predict - Schafer to go;	3		4%
I would like - Schafer to go; I predict - Schafer to stay	24		31%
I would like - Schafer to stay; I predict - Schafer to go	2		2%

---

According to multiple sources, Schafer's contract ends in 2016. What do you want to happen and what do you think will happen?

Vote on the poll and reply with what you think will happen with the program if he stays and/or if he goes.

Ex. Comment: "I think Schafer will go and Cornell will hire _____." or "I think Schafer will stay, sign a short(er) contract and then Cornell and Schafer will assess the future of the program from there."

I'd like to see him stay & continue to direct the program..... But, I do believe it's time to make sweeping changes to the assistant coaching. Replacing everyone BUT Schafer would bring some new ideas into the program while maintaining that steady hand on the controls....

redice
I'd like to see him stay & continue to direct the program..... But, I do believe it's time to make sweeping changes to the assistant coaching. Replacing everyone BUT Schafer would bring some new ideas into the program while maintaining that steady hand on the controls....

I think you're right - the system he has built (defense rooted) has had success for many years and the issue I see is the inconsistency of the offense. From what I understand, the assistant coach over the defensemen is top-notch and has had very good success. I'm not sure if it comes down to the assistant coaching, the dump-and-chase play style, young goalies, lack of chemistry, and/or etc. but the past few years the offense (specifically this year) have been on a significant decline.

Against Denver, the first night they scored 4 goals, 3 versus Yale (at Lynah), at Brown they rallied and scored 3 goals to tie it up (and was close to having 4), and at Union they scored 5 goals just to name a few instances. That being said, I am consistently reminded of games like (at) Princeton where they scored no goals against a team that was near the bottom of all D1 rankings at the end of the season. Additionally, against Quinnipiac (at Lynah) the offense going into the 3rd period and overtime was horrendous and due to bad puck movement between players, cost Cornell the game 1-0 in OT. And of course, we all know about the last two games of the season where the offense was substandard by this season's marks and the defense also fell apart.

Again, I pose the question: Is it coaching, play style, lack of chemistry among players, etc?

LynahFaithful

redice
I'd like to see him stay & continue to direct the program..... But, I do believe it's time to make sweeping changes to the assistant coaching. Replacing everyone BUT Schafer would bring some new ideas into the program while maintaining that steady hand on the controls....

I think you're right - the system he has built (defense rooted) has had success for many years and the issue I see is the inconsistency of the offense. From what I understand, the assistant coach over the defensemen is top-notch and has had very good success. I'm not sure if it comes down to the assistant coaching, the dump-and-chase play style, young goalies, lack of chemistry, and/or etc. but the past few years the offense (specifically this year) have been on a significant decline.

Against Denver, the first night they scored 4 goals, 3 versus Yale (at Lynah), at Brown they rallied and scored 3 goals to tie it up (and was close to having 4), and at Union they scored 5 goals just to name a few instances. That being said, I am consistently reminded of games like (at) Princeton where they scored no goals against a team that was near the bottom of all D1 rankings at the end of the season. Additionally, against Quinnipiac (at Lynah) the offense going into the 3rd period and overtime was horrendous and due to bad puck movement between players, cost Cornell the game 1-0 in OT. And of course, we all know about the last two games of the season where the offense was substandard by this season's marks and the defense also fell apart.

Again, I pose the question: Is it coaching, play style, lack of chemistry among players, etc?

A good coaching staff puts a team on the ice that plays hard and executes well in all aspects of the game every game. If the team does not do this (e.g., bad puck movement), except for the occassional fluke game, the coaching staff is not doing its job.

If the team does all of the above, but the style of play and/or strategy in one aspect of the game does not produce results, a good coaching staff makes adjustments. If the adjustments do not improve the deficient area of play, the coaching staff is not doing its job.

I'm not saying the team has to be a world-beater. But it should play hard, play well, and play a style of game that gives it a chance to win most games, certainly in-league games.

LynahFaithful

redice


Again, I pose the question: Is it coaching, play style, lack of chemistry among players, etc?

Isn't there one person who is ultimately responsible for all of these? Maybe not at Cornell.

Swampy

LynahFaithful

redice
I'd like to see him stay & continue to direct the program..... But, I do believe it's time to make sweeping changes to the assistant coaching. Replacing everyone BUT Schafer would bring some new ideas into the program while maintaining that steady hand on the controls....

I think you're right - the system he has built (defense rooted) has had success for many years and the issue I see is the inconsistency of the offense. From what I understand, the assistant coach over the defensemen is top-notch and has had very good success. I'm not sure if it comes down to the assistant coaching, the dump-and-chase play style, young goalies, lack of chemistry, and/or etc. but the past few years the offense (specifically this year) have been on a significant decline.

Against Denver, the first night they scored 4 goals, 3 versus Yale (at Lynah), at Brown they rallied and scored 3 goals to tie it up (and was close to having 4), and at Union they scored 5 goals just to name a few instances. That being said, I am consistently reminded of games like (at) Princeton where they scored no goals against a team that was near the bottom of all D1 rankings at the end of the season. Additionally, against Quinnipiac (at Lynah) the offense going into the 3rd period and overtime was horrendous and due to bad puck movement between players, cost Cornell the game 1-0 in OT. And of course, we all know about the last two games of the season where the offense was substandard by this season's marks and the defense also fell apart.

Again, I pose the question: Is it coaching, play style, lack of chemistry among players, etc?

A good coaching staff puts a team on the ice that plays hard and executes well in all aspects of the game every game. If the team does not do this (e.g., bad puck movement), except for the occassional fluke game, the coaching staff is not doing its job.

If the team does all of the above, but the style of play and/or strategy in one aspect of the game does not produce results, a good coaching staff makes adjustments. If the adjustments do not improve the deficient area of play, the coaching staff is not doing its job.

I'm not saying the team has to be a world-beater. But it should play hard, play well, and play a style of game that gives it a chance to win most games, certainly in-league games.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Are you attempting to answer my question saying it comes down to the coaching staff because of the bad execution on the ice and the inability to make necessary adjustments in the deficient area of play?

Towerroad

LynahFaithful


Again, I pose the question: Is it coaching, play style, lack of chemistry among players, etc?

Isn't there one person who is ultimately responsible for all of these? Maybe not at Cornell.

Who would this be? Are you trying to hint that it's the head coach (Schafer) and "Maybe not at Cornell" means that he's not doing a good job with the coaching, play style, lack of chemistry among players, etc?

Again, I pose the question: Is it coaching, play style, lack of chemistry among players, etc?

Isn't there one person who is ultimately responsible for all of these? Maybe not at Cornell.

Sure there is, but he's on his way out the door. Let's give Garrett a few months to warm up on easy issues like finances and academic excllence before tackling the hard questions.

LynahFaithful

Swampy


A good coaching staff puts a team on the ice that plays hard and executes well in all aspects of the game every game. If the team does not do this (e.g., bad puck movement), except for the occasional fluke game, the coaching staff is not doing its job.

If the team does all of the above, but the style of play and/or strategy in one aspect of the game does not produce results, a good coaching staff makes adjustments. If the adjustments do not improve the deficient area of play, the coaching staff is not doing its job.

I'm not saying the team has to be a world-beater. But it should play hard, play well, and play a style of game that gives it a chance to win most games, certainly in-league games.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Are you attempting to answer my question saying it comes down to the coaching staff because of the bad execution on the ice and the inability to make necessary adjustments in the deficient area of play?

Partly I'm thinking out loud. These are characteristics of a team with good coaching, win or lose. So, yes, I suppose I am saying it's the coaching staff's responsibility if a team lacks these traits.

LynahFaithful

Swampy

LynahFaithful

redice
I'd like to see him stay & continue to direct the program..... But, I do believe it's time to make sweeping changes to the assistant coaching. Replacing everyone BUT Schafer would bring some new ideas into the program while maintaining that steady hand on the controls....

I think you're right - the system he has built (defense rooted) has had success for many years and the issue I see is the inconsistency of the offense. From what I understand, the assistant coach over the defensemen is top-notch and has had very good success. I'm not sure if it comes down to the assistant coaching, the dump-and-chase play style, young goalies, lack of chemistry, and/or etc. but the past few years the offense (specifically this year) have been on a significant decline.

Against Denver, the first night they scored 4 goals, 3 versus Yale (at Lynah), at Brown they rallied and scored 3 goals to tie it up (and was close to having 4), and at Union they scored 5 goals just to name a few instances. That being said, I am consistently reminded of games like (at) Princeton where they scored no goals against a team that was near the bottom of all D1 rankings at the end of the season. Additionally, against Quinnipiac (at Lynah) the offense going into the 3rd period and overtime was horrendous and due to bad puck movement between players, cost Cornell the game 1-0 in OT. And of course, we all know about the last two games of the season where the offense was substandard by this season's marks and the defense also fell apart.

Again, I pose the question: Is it coaching, play style, lack of chemistry among players, etc?

A good coaching staff puts a team on the ice that plays hard and executes well in all aspects of the game every game. If the team does not do this (e.g., bad puck movement), except for the occassional fluke game, the coaching staff is not doing its job.

If the team does all of the above, but the style of play and/or strategy in one aspect of the game does not produce results, a good coaching staff makes adjustments. If the adjustments do not improve the deficient area of play, the coaching staff is not doing its job.

I'm not saying the team has to be a world-beater. But it should play hard, play well, and play a style of game that gives it a chance to win most games, certainly in-league games.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Are you attempting to answer my question saying it comes down to the coaching staff because of the bad execution on the ice and the inability to make necessary adjustments in the deficient area of play?

Towerroad

LynahFaithful


Again, I pose the question: Is it coaching, play style, lack of chemistry among players, etc?

Isn't there one person who is ultimately responsible for all of these? Maybe not at Cornell.

Who would this be? Are you trying to hint that it's the head coach (Schafer) and "Maybe not at Cornell" means that he's not doing a good job with the coaching, play style, lack of chemistry among players, etc?

Well, there seem to be a lot of people on these pages that keep asking questions like this and trying to connect the dots and never seem to come to the conclusion that those dots all lead to the Head Coaches door. That is the genesis of my snarky "not at Cornell" comment.

For example, if you want to keep the HC but fire some or all of the assistants who's call is that? Answer, the HC so he is responsible and accountable for the AC's perfomance.

Unhappy with the offense - Who is responsible for recruiting the players, who is responsible for the style of play, who is responsible for developing the players? All roads lead to one place.

Schafer is ultimately responsible for everything: recruiting, coaching, performance, results. If there's a serious problem in one or more of those departments it's up to him to fix it with personnel and/or changes in approach. If he can't do that, it's his failure.

In the same way that I credit Schafer with the astounding success of the program over his first 15 years, I'd say he has to be held responsible for the problems of the last 5. He has (IMHO) certainly deserved our trust and patience in trying to turn things around -- even Harkness had down years at RPI -- but another down year and the university will certainly be reviewing its options for renewal.

There's also the question of how long he wants to keep doing the job. Are the challenges new and interesting, or does it feel like a Sisyphean task after two decades? It's possible we might even see a mutually agreed upon parting. Whatever happens I hope Mike will always be a big part of the Cornell hockey community, and a much-appreciated one.

in fairness, the problems of the last 5 years are mostly mediocrity, not outright disaster either, so it's not like the program has fallen off a cliff in any way, it seems more of a general Jimmy Carter-like malaise.

Well, it seems that people are almost all on the same page about it coming down to the head coach for a variety of reasons. So, what exactly will happen?

If Schafer stays, what changes could/should he make? Play style? Assistant coaching?

If Schafer goes, then who could Cornell bring in?

LynahFaithful
Well, it seems that people are almost all on the same page about it coming down to the head coach for a variety of reasons. So, what exactly will happen?

If Schafer stays, what changes could/should he make? Play style? Assistant coaching?

If Schafer goes, then who could Cornell bring in?

Good. We've helped the athletic director narrow the choices.

Mike has already stated publicly that he tried new systems and they just didn't work. Hopefully he goes back to what he knows to be successful and we see a return to being in the hunt for league titles and NCAA berths.

Cop at Lynah
Mike has already stated publicly that he tried new systems and they just didn't work. Hopefully he goes back to what he knows to be successful and we see a return to being in the hunt for league titles and NCAA berths.

His intent to return to the old system is clear. Whether that system is still capable of taking us to the promised land is far from clear. Remember, the "14/15 Experiment" was a response to mediocre performance in the prior few years not an attempt to fine tune a well oiled machine.

I am reliably informed that the way one plays on the side of the rink occupied by the Sieve is important to the outcome of the game.

Cop at Lynah
Mike has already stated publicly that he tried new systems and they just didn't work.

I think this is more an argument against Mike than against the new systems.

Cop at Lynah
Mike has already stated publicly that he tried new systems and they just didn't work. Hopefully he goes back to what he knows to be successful and we see a return to being in the hunt for league titles and NCAA berths.

But in general, will going back to old ways will change much? I'm not sure how much of an impact the changes he made had. For a few years leading up to this past year (when "old ways" were present), the program was progressively on a decline. What will it take to return the program to where it was when Schafer took over around the late 90's? Has recruiting declined and other ECAC schools are getting good players?

Here's one coach we won't have.

I like this quote: "He is a proven teacher of the game who has been a part of developing successful NHL players."

Has anyone ever considered Joe Nieuwendyk? He doesn't have coaching experience but I don't think it would hurt to give him a shot. Would he take the job if it were offered to him?

LynahFaithful
Has anyone ever considered Joe Nieuwendyk? He doesn't have coaching experience but I don't think it would hurt to give him a shot. Would he take the job if it were offered to him?

Absent any inside knowledge, I can't imagine he'd want the job. Ithaca's pretty and Mike's a friend, but we're small potatoes compared to what Joe has been doing.

Trotsky

Absent any inside knowledge, I can't imagine he'd want the job. Ithaca's pretty and Mike's a friend, but we're small potatoes compared to what Joe has been doing.

Very true. However, I like to think though the head coaching position (at Cornell) is a pretty big title that many would like to have, potentially including NHL/Cornell alums like Nieuwendyk.

Is it likely that the athletic director will want to have an alum at the helm of the program? If not, is Rick Bennett (Union HC) a worthy option?

There shouldn't be a question whether Mike's contract is renewed. He has built this program up over the last 15 years to be a force, year after year. Our goaltending(Gillam, Iles, Scrivens, McKee and Leneveau etc.) has been top notch year after year and our defense is extremely solid. Our lack of offense is a bit of an issue this past season but it will come around with a new stock of young blood. It's a shame many of you armchair quarterbacks have taken one of the best coaches in the country for granted and are itching for a change. The grass is always greener on the other side, but sometimes its painted green. He has maintained and built a foundation for consistent winning tradition for the Big Red and should be given a 5 year extension. If Mike and his staff get us a few snipers and a Brian Ferlin type forward with this years class or next, we are taking the ECAC's in March and maybe even going to the frozen four. I guess its so easy to recruit to an IVY League School these days according to some of y'all. Keep up the good work Mike, just a fluke last year!

06Cowboy13
There shouldn't be a question whether Mike's contract is renewed. He has built this program up over the last 15 years to be a force, year after year. Our goaltending(Gillam, Iles, Scrivens, McKee and Leneveau etc.) has been top notch year after year and our defense is extremely solid. Our lack of offense is a bit of an issue this past season but it will come around with a new stock of young blood. It's a shame many of you armchair quarterbacks have taken one of the best coaches in the country for granted and are itching for a change. The grass is always greener on the other side, but sometimes its painted green. He has maintained and built a foundation for consistent winning tradition for the Big Red and should be given a 5 year extension. If Mike and his staff get us a few snipers and a Brian Ferlin type forward with this years class or next, we are taking the ECAC's in March and maybe even going to the frozen four. I guess its so easy to recruit to an IVY League School these days according to some of y'all. Keep up the good work Mike, just a fluke last year!

To suggest that this is a question that should not be asked is to deny the very foundations that our University was built on. Of course the question should be asked. You can take the position, like many, that his long term record justifies a substantial extension but there is a reasonable and cogent question about the current trend and performance.

The head coach is neither pope nor potentate with life tenure. He is an employee and like all employees there are performance expectations. A sizable portion of the posters here (not a majority) think that their performance expectations are not being met. While their opinions, as well supporters count for little there is room for healthy questioning.

06Cowboy13
It's a shame many of you armchair quarterbacks have taken one of the best coaches in the country for granted and are itching for a change. The grass is always greener on the other side, but sometimes its painted green. He has maintained and built a foundation for consistent winning tradition for the Big Red and should be given a 5 year extension.

I appreciate you being optimistic (even going as far to call many of us armchair quaterbacks) but this is not realistic. I am not going to diagree that he is a great coach, but the last four years have been continuously downhill and to continue that for another 5 years would potentially be disastrous.

06Cowboy13
If Mike and his staff get us a few snipers and a Brian Ferlin type forward with this years class or next, we are taking the ECAC's in March and maybe even going to the frozen four. I guess its so easy to recruit to an IVY League School these days according to some of y'all. Keep up the good work Mike, just a fluke last year!

This or next year's recruiting class will maybe lead us to the frozen four? Call me crazy, but I'll believe it when I see it. When's the last time we made it that far...? (13 years ago)

Towerroad
You can take the position, like many, that his long term record justifies a substantial extension but there is a reasonable and cogent question about the current trend and performance. The head coach is neither pope nor potentate with life tenure. He is an employee and like all employees there are performance expectations. A sizable portion of the posters here (not a majority) think that their performance expectations are not being met. While their opinions, as well supporters count for little there is room for healthy questioning.

I agree with this and while I want to keep Schafer and honor what he's done for the program, I question the latest trend of the teams he's produced the last few years. Honestly, part of me fears getting a new coach because for all I know, the team could fall apart even worse than things have been with him. That's why I have posted asking who it would be if we do choose to sign someone new and aside from Nieuwendyk, I dont have a solid answer to who might be able to work.

why Nieuwendyk? I get he's a big name, but he's got no coaching experience, and I don't want a Ted Donato situation, with a famous alum you can't fire if need be.

underskill
why Nieuwendyk? I get he's a big name, but he's got no coaching experience, and I don't want a Ted Donato situation, with a famous alum you can't fire if need be.

Nieuwy is also an asset to Cornell simply by being a big name out there in the NHL (and one who, AFAIK, is very highly thought of and well liked).

The list of program alumni who have had success somewhere as coach / assistant coach is pretty short: Casey Jones, Shaun Hannah, Topher Scott, maybe Karl Williams.

Among ex-Schafer assistants are Scott Garrow (assistant at Princeton), Brent Brekke (Miami associate coach), Jamie Russell (Elmira head coach), and Mark Taylor (Hobart head coach).

underskill
why Nieuwendyk? I get he's a big name, but he's got no coaching experience, and I don't want a Ted Donato situation, with a famous alum you can't fire if need be.

Valid point. However, I believe within a couple years he would be able to attract very good assistant coaches and also players via recruiting just because of his big name. You do pose a good point about not being able to fire notable alumni though, and I'm not sure I have something to address that concern. The only thing that could work is signing him for a year or two at first and continually sign him for years to come, contingent on the team's performance...

Trotsky
Nieuwy is also an asset to Cornell simply by being a big name out there in the NHL (and one who, AFAIK, is very highly thought of and well liked).

The list of program alumni who have had success somewhere as coach / assistant coach is pretty short: Casey Jones, Shaun Hannah, Topher Scott, maybe Karl Williams.

Among ex-Schafer assistants are Scott Garrow (assistant at Princeton), Brent Brekke (Miami associate coach), Jamie Russell (Elmira head coach), and Mark Taylor (Hobart head coach).

Yes, there are not many names that come to my mind that I would want at the helm of our program...some of these assistant coaches I would be weary of naming head coach right off the bat. If we were to look laterally, who would we consider from other ECAC (or Hockey East) programs? Is it critical that the coach is a Cornell alum? If so, is Ken Dryden another option or is he invested enough in Canadian politics that he's out of the question? I also mentioned Rick Bennett (Union HC) and I didn't get much of a reaction back...

LynahFaithful
If we were to look laterally, who would we consider from other ECAC (or Hockey East) programs? Is it critical that the coach is a Cornell alum? If so, is Ken Dryden another option or is he invested enough in Canadian politics that he's out of the question? I also mentioned Rick Bennett (Union HC) and I didn't get much of a reaction back...

I think Bennett's just fine where he is. I don't know why he'd take the job. (Much like Leaman at Providence). Even though Union is more exclusive than most schools, it's still easier to get a guy in there than at an Ivy.

I do not think it is important to be a Cornell alum. It certainly helps to be familiar with the Ivy League's sensitivities and mission. Bringing in a guy from say Minnesota or even Michigan would not work here.

If we ever make a change I kind of hope it's a radical change, otherwise I don't see the logic of moving on from Mike.

Trotsky

LynahFaithful
If we were to look laterally, who would we consider from other ECAC (or Hockey East) programs? Is it critical that the coach is a Cornell alum? If so, is Ken Dryden another option or is he invested enough in Canadian politics that he's out of the question? I also mentioned Rick Bennett (Union HC) and I didn't get much of a reaction back...

I think Bennett's just fine where he is. I don't know why he'd take the job. (Much like Leaman at Providence). Even though Union is more exclusive than most schools, it's still easier to get a guy in there than at an Ivy.

I do not think it is important to be a Cornell alum. It certainly helps to be familiar with the Ivy League's sensitivities and mission. Bringing in a guy from say Minnesota or even Michigan would not work here.

If we ever make a change I kind of hope it's a radical change, otherwise I don't see the logic of moving on from Mike.

Very true. I forgot about recruiting restrictions the Ivy league has that I'm sure Bennett is doing fine without having to deal with. And personally, I agree regarding alumni - it's nice but not critical and in the grand scheme of things, I don't believe it matters all that much...

And when you say radical change, what do you have in mind? Maybe give an example of a coach that would mean a radical change and explain how?

Trotsky

LynahFaithful
If we were to look laterally, who would we consider from other ECAC (or Hockey East) programs? Is it critical that the coach is a Cornell alum? If so, is Ken Dryden another option or is he invested enough in Canadian politics that he's out of the question? I also mentioned Rick Bennett (Union HC) and I didn't get much of a reaction back...

I think Bennett's just fine where he is. I don't know why he'd take the job. (Much like Leaman at Providence). Even though Union is more exclusive than most schools, it's still easier to get a guy in there than at an Ivy.

I like Bennett. I like his intensity, I like his style of play, I like his recruits, who have been great academically. I love it that RPI foams at the mouth at the mere mention of his name. He'd do fine here- and would come if the price was right because of the fan support, donor support, bigger rink, and better brand. I'd love to see him here. Don't know if he could live with Andy Noel, though.

Trotsky
I do not think it is important to be a Cornell alum. It certainly helps to be familiar with the Ivy League's sensitivities and mission. Bringing in a guy from say Minnesota or even Michigan would not work here.

If we ever make a change I kind of hope it's a radical change, otherwise I don't see the logic of moving on from Mike.

Agree.

TimV
I like Bennett. I like his intensity, I like his style of play, I like his recruits, who have been great academically. I love it that RPI foams at the mouth at the mere mention of his name. He'd do fine here- and would come if the price was right because of the fan support, donor support, bigger rink, and better brand. I'd love to see him here. Don't know if he could live with Andy Noel, though.

As an eastern New York native with many college hockey fans back home, I hear close to nothing negative about Bennett. I also like his intensity, his never-satisfied mindset, and his ability to produce such great teams for a ~2500 person college. In his first three years as head coach he won three ECAC titles, goes to a couple of frozen fours, an NCAA regional final, wins a national championship, and has a 19-2 postseason record. Last year was obviously the worst year in his career as head coach, but the recent success he's had as a coach surely isn't minimized. My understanding is that he targets recruiting the guys that are not as highly sought out by other schools and emphasizes very sound/fundamental hockey. RPI has truly had their hands full with him at the helm because of all of the success Union's had (especially in the "rivalry" among the two schools).

I feel the same way as TimV - If the price was right and there was enough support, I would love to see him here at Cornell. With a more historic program, being a better school, and with the ability to recruit better players, I feel as though he would thrive here. Can someone fill me in with what the issue with Andy Noel might be? I don't know much about him as an AD.

LynahFaithful
And when you say radical change, what do you have in mind? Maybe give an example of a coach that would mean a radical change and explain how?

When I say radical change I mean an entirely new philosophy. This also likely means bringing in someone from outside the program since Cornellians of the past 20 years both self-selected and then were trained in Mike's style.

I had nobody in particular in mind, but perhaps a Keith Allain type of coach. Yale was firewagon when they won the title; now they have become a much more defensive-oriented team given their personnel. I would like to see that flexibility, where you go get the best players you can and then craft your system to their strengths, rather than having a set system and then looking for players who can plug in.

However, I love Mike (PBUH) and if he wants to stay 20 more years AFAIC we owe him that much. He saved Cornell hockey and we should never forget that.

Andy- perhaps under pressure from above- fired the successful alumnus coach of his most successful men's sport. I don't trust that Andy would handle a post-game altercation with opposing players and coaches (short version) and (long version) as patiently as the Union AD.

And before one of you jokers suggests it, although Seth Appert may soon become available, he's not the offensive messiah we need.

Trotsky

LynahFaithful
And when you say radical change, what do you have in mind? Maybe give an example of a coach that would mean a radical change and explain how?

When I say radical change I mean an entirely new philosophy. This also likely means bringing in someone from outside the program since Cornellians of the past 20 years both self-selected and then were trained in Mike's style.

I had nobody in particular in mind, but perhaps a Keith Allain type of coach. Yale was firewagon when they won the title; now they have become a much more defensive-oriented team given their personnel. I would like to see that flexibility, where you go get the best players you can and then craft your system to their strengths, rather than having a set system and then looking for players who can plug in.

However, I love Mike (PBUH) and if he wants to stay 20 more years AFAIC we owe him that much. He saved Cornell hockey and we should never forget that.

Oh, I see. I believe deep-down that Rick Bennett would be able to bring this "entirely new philosophy" you speak of to the rink. Look at the guys he recruits and mediocre facilities/setup he's currently equipped with at Union and it's amazing (to me at least) all of the success on the national level he's had the last few years. He takes what he's got and turns it into something great.

TimV
Andy- perhaps under pressure from above- fired the successful alumnus coach of his most successful men's sport. I don't trust that Andy would handle a post-game altercation with opposing players and coaches (short version) and (long version) as patiently as the Union AD.

And before one of you jokers suggests it, although Seth Appert may soon become available, he's not the offensive messiah we need.

Oh, yeah... I forgot about that. I believe firing DeLuca (over hazing that was going on among the lacrosse team's players) was a LARGE mistake and many of us are beginning to realize that recently. I believe that should have been handled more with the players than through the coach. I also recognize that he might not tolerate post-game altercations well, but look at how he tolerated Schafer's not-so-nice comments regarding Quinnipiac last year. I believe that if Noel wants to have a pretty successful hockey program and Bennett wants to be at the head of the Cornell team, the two will make it work.

TimV

Trotsky

LynahFaithful
If we were to look laterally, who would we consider from other ECAC (or Hockey East) programs? Is it critical that the coach is a Cornell alum? If so, is Ken Dryden another option or is he invested enough in Canadian politics that he's out of the question? I also mentioned Rick Bennett (Union HC) and I didn't get much of a reaction back...

I think Bennett's just fine where he is. I don't know why he'd take the job. (Much like Leaman at Providence). Even though Union is more exclusive than most schools, it's still easier to get a guy in there than at an Ivy.

I like Bennett. I like his intensity, I like his style of play, I like his recruits, who have been great academically. I love it that RPI foams at the mouth at the mere mention of his name. He'd do fine here- and would come if the price was right because of the fan support, donor support, bigger rink, and better brand. I'd love to see him here. Don't know if he could live with Andy Noel, though.

Where is the foams-at-the-mouth emoticon?

Personally, I am ashamed to live on the same planet as Bennett. I was also ashamed to be member of the same species as he, but I heard a DNA test proved he is a Neanderthal.

LynahFaithful
In his first three years as head coach he won three ECAC titles, goes to a couple of frozen fours, an NCAA regional final, wins a national championship, and has a 19-2 postseason record. Last year was obviously the worst year in his career as head coach

Right there. Let's think about that. His first three years, he wins ECAC titles. He was handed a team that had won 20 games each of the previous 2 seasons. Now his 4th year in, (cough cough a full 4-year recruiting cycle) Union barely finishes above .500. Leaman, the guy who had built up Union to that powerhouse level, then takes over an 8-18-8 team and in the same 4-year period turns them into National Champions. Who has the golden touch?

I'm not saying Bennett is a bad coach. I just think he was handed the keys to the kitchen when the pot was already boiling. (Good god, that's terrible. Is that even a real metaphor?) Coaching is about on-ice performance AND recruiting. Let's see Bennett have success with his own recruits.

Contrast this with 1990s-era Schafer. He took a team that had won an aggregate total of 25 games over three seasons and immediately reeled off two league crowns. Really, it was out of nowhere. But then his first full recruiting cycle turned in a 12-15-4 season (this is where Bennett is now). That was his last losing season for 14 years. Bennett could do this too, and having a national title under your belt has to be a wonderful recruiting tool. I'm curious to see.

Hi Ralph!

(The rest of you guys see what I mean?)

ursusminor

TimV

Trotsky

LynahFaithful
If we were to look laterally, who would we consider from other ECAC (or Hockey East) programs? Is it critical that the coach is a Cornell alum? If so, is Ken Dryden another option or is he invested enough in Canadian politics that he's out of the question? I also mentioned Rick Bennett (Union HC) and I didn't get much of a reaction back...

I think Bennett's just fine where he is. I don't know why he'd take the job. (Much like Leaman at Providence). Even though Union is more exclusive than most schools, it's still easier to get a guy in there than at an Ivy.

I like Bennett. I like his intensity, I like his style of play, I like his recruits, who have been great academically. I love it that RPI foams at the mouth at the mere mention of his name. He'd do fine here- and would come if the price was right because of the fan support, donor support, bigger rink, and better brand. I'd love to see him here. Don't know if he could live with Andy Noel, though.

Where is the foams-at-the-mouth emoticon?

Personally, I am ashamed to live on the same planet as Bennett. I was also ashamed to be member of the same species as he, but I heard a DNA test proved he is a Neanderthal.

5/5 Stars for saying it.

TimV
I don't trust that Andy would handle a post-game altercation with opposing players and coaches (short version) and (long version) as patiently as the Union AD.

I totally disagree. What Bennett deserved much more than what he got. I mean, come on, going on the ice and punching a player. I would have had zero tolerance for that and fired him. I only hope that they told him that any further physical altercation, anywhere and any time, means he's automatically let go.

TimV
He'd do fine here- and would come if the price was right because of the fan support, donor support, bigger rink, and better brand.

Do you have some inside info that let's you know that he'd come here? Otherwise I take this with the "grain of salt" that it deserves.

LynahFaithful
If so, is Ken Dryden another option or is he invested enough in Canadian politics that he's out of the question?

The real thing is that he's so totally uninvested in Cornell hockey, that it's out of the question.

Wow. I'm duly chastised.

Jim- please read back over the thread- I didn't initiate the Bennett idea, and have absolutely no inside info. I just commented on it when the original poster expressed that no one responded to him/her. I did this based on Bennett's body of work aside from his incident with RPI, which I am willing to look at as an aberration unworthy of the vitriol the RPI fans heap on him in a monumental display of false sanctimony. These are the same people (Not you, Ralph) who blame the victim or claim faking when one of their guys injures someone with a vicious boarding from behind.

And personally, I take EVERYTHING here with a grain of salt. Maybe two grains. So should you.

TimV
Wow. I'm duly chastised.

Jim- please read back over the thread- I didn't initiate the Bennett idea, and have absolutely no inside info. I just commented on it when the original poster expressed that no one responded to him/her. I did this based on Bennett's body of work aside from his incident with RPI, which I am willing to look at as an aberration unworthy of the vitriol the RPI fans heap on him in a monumental display of false sanctimony. These are the same people (Not you, Ralph) who blame the victim or claim faking when one of their guys injures someone with a vicious boarding from behind.

And personally, I take EVERYTHING here with a grain of salt. Maybe two grains. So should you.

Maybe a truck load of salt. This is a forum for idle speculation and conjecture, that is what makes is so enjoyable.

Towerroad
Maybe a truck load of salt. This is a forum for idle speculation and conjecture, that is what makes is so enjoyable.

Nah. I'm here for the jokes.

ursusminor

TimV

Trotsky

LynahFaithful
If we were to look laterally, who would we consider from other ECAC (or Hockey East) programs? Is it critical that the coach is a Cornell alum? If so, is Ken Dryden another option or is he invested enough in Canadian politics that he's out of the question? I also mentioned Rick Bennett (Union HC) and I didn't get much of a reaction back...

I think Bennett's just fine where he is. I don't know why he'd take the job. (Much like Leaman at Providence). Even though Union is more exclusive than most schools, it's still easier to get a guy in there than at an Ivy.

I like Bennett. I like his intensity, I like his style of play, I like his recruits, who have been great academically. I love it that RPI foams at the mouth at the mere mention of his name. He'd do fine here- and would come if the price was right because of the fan support, donor support, bigger rink, and better brand. I'd love to see him here. Don't know if he could live with Andy Noel, though.

Where is the foams-at-the-mouth emoticon?

Personally, I am ashamed to live on the same planet as Bennett. I was also ashamed to be member of the same species as he, but I heard a DNA test proved he is a Neanderthal.

Why don't you like Bennett? What's the strong dislike rooted in?

RichH

LynahFaithful
In his first three years as head coach he won three ECAC titles, goes to a couple of frozen fours, an NCAA regional final, wins a national championship, and has a 19-2 postseason record. Last year was obviously the worst year in his career as head coach

Right there. Let's think about that. His first three years, he wins ECAC titles. He was handed a team that had won 20 games each of the previous 2 seasons. Now his 4th year in, (cough cough a full 4-year recruiting cycle) Union barely finishes above .500. Leaman, the guy who had built up Union to that powerhouse level, then takes over an 8-18-8 team and in the same 4-year period turns them into National Champions. Who has the golden touch?

I'm not saying Bennett is a bad coach. I just think he was handed the keys to the kitchen when the pot was already boiling. (Good god, that's terrible. Is that even a real metaphor?) Coaching is about on-ice performance AND recruiting. Let's see Bennett have success with his own recruits.

Contrast this with 1990s-era Schafer. He took a team that had won an aggregate total of 25 games over three seasons and immediately reeled off two league crowns. Really, it was out of nowhere. But then his first full recruiting cycle turned in a 12-15-4 season (this is where Bennett is now). That was his last losing season for 14 years. Bennett could do this too, and having a national title under your belt has to be a wonderful recruiting tool. I'm curious to see.

Valid point, however going by the 4-year recruiting cycle theory you brought up, technically the first season of having ALL his own recruits will be this season. At the end of this season, I think then we can analyze his recruiting capability under the 4-year cycle concept. Also, i would like to reiterate that despite having mediocre recruiting classes, Bennett has done very well with the guys he's received, which impresses me a lot. Taking that with "a truck load of salt", the next few years will be very telling of his ability to produce results with guys that (solely) he has recruited and brought in and I personally believe that he will have continued and sustained sucess.

I sense people going both ways on considering Bennett and people leaning more towards no regarding Nieuwendyk... but who else would be the answer?

LynahFaithful

ursusminor

TimV

Trotsky

LynahFaithful
If we were to look laterally, who would we consider from other ECAC (or Hockey East) programs? Is it critical that the coach is a Cornell alum? If so, is Ken Dryden another option or is he invested enough in Canadian politics that he's out of the question? I also mentioned Rick Bennett (Union HC) and I didn't get much of a reaction back...

I think Bennett's just fine where he is. I don't know why he'd take the job. (Much like Leaman at Providence). Even though Union is more exclusive than most schools, it's still easier to get a guy in there than at an Ivy.

I like Bennett. I like his intensity, I like his style of play, I like his recruits, who have been great academically. I love it that RPI foams at the mouth at the mere mention of his name. He'd do fine here- and would come if the price was right because of the fan support, donor support, bigger rink, and better brand. I'd love to see him here. Don't know if he could live with Andy Noel, though.

Where is the foams-at-the-mouth emoticon?

Personally, I am ashamed to live on the same planet as Bennett. I was also ashamed to be member of the same species as he, but I heard a DNA test proved he is a Neanderthal.

Why don't you like Bennett? What's the strong dislike rooted in?

Top three reasons for SOME RPI fans:

1. He has RPI's number;
2. He has RPI's number;
3. He has RPI's number.

Although many blame The Altercation to avoid dealing with the actual reasons.

TimV

LynahFaithful

ursusminor

TimV

Trotsky

LynahFaithful
If we were to look laterally, who would we consider from other ECAC (or Hockey East) programs? Is it critical that the coach is a Cornell alum? If so, is Ken Dryden another option or is he invested enough in Canadian politics that he's out of the question? I also mentioned Rick Bennett (Union HC) and I didn't get much of a reaction back...

I think Bennett's just fine where he is. I don't know why he'd take the job. (Much like Leaman at Providence). Even though Union is more exclusive than most schools, it's still easier to get a guy in there than at an Ivy.

I like Bennett. I like his intensity, I like his style of play, I like his recruits, who have been great academically. I love it that RPI foams at the mouth at the mere mention of his name. He'd do fine here- and would come if the price was right because of the fan support, donor support, bigger rink, and better brand. I'd love to see him here. Don't know if he could live with Andy Noel, though.

Where is the foams-at-the-mouth emoticon?

Personally, I am ashamed to live on the same planet as Bennett. I was also ashamed to be member of the same species as he, but I heard a DNA test proved he is a Neanderthal.

Why don't you like Bennett? What's the strong dislike rooted in?

Top three reasons for SOME RPI fans:

1. He has RPI's number;
2. He has RPI's number;
3. He has RPI's number.

Although many blame The Altercation to avoid dealing with the actual reasons.

RPI did defeat Union in both ECAC contests last season.

ursusminor

TimV

LynahFaithful
Why don't you like Bennett? What's the strong dislike rooted in?

Top three reasons for SOME RPI fans:

1. He has RPI's number;
2. He has RPI's number;
3. He has RPI's number.

Although many blame The Altercation to avoid dealing with the actual reasons.

RPI did defeat Union in both ECAC contests last season.

Yep. Last year was a relatively good year for the Tute v. Union. Not as good as implied in your well-worded post, since the record for all games vs. Union was 2-1, with one of those W's coming in overtime and total goals being 11-10 your favor.

Ralph- I can't match up with your knowledge of RPI and college hockey in general - but correct me if I'm wrong:

Bennett's record as head coach for ALL GAMES v RPI: 11-3. Total goals: Union 55 RPI 32.

If you include his years as assistant coach (2005-6 to 2010-11) you can add 10 wins, 3 losses and 3 ties to his record v RPI.

Looks like Bennett has your number to me.

I wish we had that record - against both of you.

TimV
Wow. I'm duly chastised.

Jim- please read back over the thread- I didn't initiate the Bennett idea, and have absolutely no inside info. I just commented on it when the original poster expressed that no one responded to him/her. I did this based on Bennett's body of work aside from his incident with RPI, which I am willing to look at as an aberration unworthy of the vitriol the RPI fans heap on him in a monumental display of false sanctimony. These are the same people (Not you, Ralph) who blame the victim or claim faking when one of their guys injures someone with a vicious boarding from behind.

And personally, I take EVERYTHING here with a grain of salt. Maybe two grains. So should you.

I did read your post. Here's the part I quoted.

and would come if the price was right because of the fan support, donor support, bigger rink, and better brand.

I was responding to that statement, particularly "and would come". It seemed to me that you couldn't make such a declarative statement, unless you had some inside information. That's it, plain and simple. You said he would come. So I wondered how you knew that.

Got it. There was some discussion about what reasons there might be that would might be attractive enough to cause him to come. I was positing what those reasons might be. Sorry to mislead you. Besides, he's got contract extensions through 2021, I think. Not inside info. I think it's in the Union media guide. I think.

So, when is he signing that Cornell contract?

Heh. Summer of 2121? Or after his next fight. Whichever comes first.

TimV

ursusminor

TimV

LynahFaithful
Why don't you like Bennett? What's the strong dislike rooted in?

Top three reasons for SOME RPI fans:

1. He has RPI's number;
2. He has RPI's number;
3. He has RPI's number.

Although many blame The Altercation to avoid dealing with the actual reasons.

RPI did defeat Union in both ECAC contests last season.

Yep. Last year was a relatively good year for the Tute v. Union. Not as good as implied in your well-worded post, since the record for all games vs. Union was 2-1, with one of those W's coming in overtime and total goals being 11-10 your favor.

Ralph- I can't match up with your knowledge of RPI and college hockey in general - but correct me if I'm wrong:

Bennett's record as head coach for ALL GAMES v RPI: 11-3. Total goals: Union 55 RPI 32.

If you include his years as assistant coach (2005-6 to 2010-11) you can add 10 wins, 3 losses and 3 ties to his record v RPI.

Looks like Bennett has your number to me.

I wish we had that record - against both of you.

Tim,

I am certainly not denying that Bennett has RPI's number. I was just pointing out that RPI defeated Union in both ECAC contests last season. Before losing to Union in the Mayor's Cup game last season, we actually had a three-game winning streak vs. Bennett and Union.

Please realize that this is like what would happen here if Harvard ever got a decent coach (and fans) and started to defeat Cornell on a regular basis. That is a reason, I suspect, that one of the questions that appears sometimes on the upper right of this forum specifically excludes Harvard from the Ivies whom one would like to win a future NCAA title.

BTW, although Cornell does not have a .786 (11-3) winning percentage against RPI, .620 isn't exactly bad over more than 100 years. Source: [www.augenblick.org] I must add that RPI did defeat Cornell twice when they were almost unbeatable in the late 1960s, the first of which is the source of my avatar.

No kiddin'? Seems every time I show up at Houston, RPI, no matter how bad they seemed before, gets well again.

ursusminor

TimV

ursusminor

TimV

LynahFaithful
Why don't you like Bennett? What's the strong dislike rooted in?

Top three reasons for SOME RPI fans:

1. He has RPI's number;
2. He has RPI's number;
3. He has RPI's number.

Although many blame The Altercation to avoid dealing with the actual reasons.

RPI did defeat Union in both ECAC contests last season.

Yep. Last year was a relatively good year for the Tute v. Union. Not as good as implied in your well-worded post, since the record for all games vs. Union was 2-1, with one of those W's coming in overtime and total goals being 11-10 your favor.

Ralph- I can't match up with your knowledge of RPI and college hockey in general - but correct me if I'm wrong:

Bennett's record as head coach for ALL GAMES v RPI: 11-3. Total goals: Union 55 RPI 32.

If you include his years as assistant coach (2005-6 to 2010-11) you can add 10 wins, 3 losses and 3 ties to his record v RPI.

Looks like Bennett has your number to me.

I wish we had that record - against both of you.

Tim,

I am certainly not denying that Bennett has RPI's number. I was just pointing out that RPI defeated Union in both ECAC contests last season. Before losing to Union in the Mayor's Cup game last season, we actually had a three-game winning streak vs. Bennett and Union.

Please realize that this is like what would happen here if Harvard ever got a decent coach (and fans) and started to defeat Cornell on a regular basis. That is a reason, I suspect, that one of the questions that appears sometimes on the upper right of this forum specifically excludes Harvard from the Ivies whom one would like to win a future NCAA title.

BTW, although Cornell does not have a .786 (11-3) winning percentage against RPI, .620 isn't exactly bad over more than 100 years. Source: [www.augenblick.org] I must add that RPI did defeat Cornell twice when they were almost unbeatable in the late 1960s, the first of which is the source of my avatar.

Which two are you referring to?

Jim Hyla

ursusminor

TimV

ursusminor

TimV

LynahFaithful
Why don't you like Bennett? What's the strong dislike rooted in?

Top three reasons for SOME RPI fans:

1. He has RPI's number;
2. He has RPI's number;
3. He has RPI's number.

Although many blame The Altercation to avoid dealing with the actual reasons.

RPI did defeat Union in both ECAC contests last season.

Yep. Last year was a relatively good year for the Tute v. Union. Not as good as implied in your well-worded post, since the record for all games vs. Union was 2-1, with one of those W's coming in overtime and total goals being 11-10 your favor.

Ralph- I can't match up with your knowledge of RPI and college hockey in general - but correct me if I'm wrong:

Bennett's record as head coach for ALL GAMES v RPI: 11-3. Total goals: Union 55 RPI 32.

If you include his years as assistant coach (2005-6 to 2010-11) you can add 10 wins, 3 losses and 3 ties to his record v RPI.

Looks like Bennett has your number to me.

I wish we had that record - against both of you.

Tim,

I am certainly not denying that Bennett has RPI's number. I was just pointing out that RPI defeated Union in both ECAC contests last season. Before losing to Union in the Mayor's Cup game last season, we actually had a three-game winning streak vs. Bennett and Union.

Please realize that this is like what would happen here if Harvard ever got a decent coach (and fans) and started to defeat Cornell on a regular basis. That is a reason, I suspect, that one of the questions that appears sometimes on the upper right of this forum specifically excludes Harvard from the Ivies whom one would like to win a future NCAA title.

BTW, although Cornell does not have a .786 (11-3) winning percentage against RPI, .620 isn't exactly bad over more than 100 years. Source: [www.augenblick.org] I must add that RPI did defeat Cornell twice when they were almost unbeatable in the late 1960s, the first of which is the source of my avatar.

Which two are you referring to?

12/4/68 RPI 4 Cornell 3 (OT)
12/1/70 RPI 6 Cornell 3 (I guess that wasn't in the late 1960s, except for those who regard decades ending in years with zeros at the end . It did end Cornell's winning streak after the perfect season.)

Sorry to resurrect an old thread.....

But, I am now solidly in the "Fire Schafer" crowd. It repulses me to watch his teams constantly focus so much on defense that they seem to have lost sight of their need to score enough goals to win hockey games.

Why play overtime games when their only focus is NOT allowing their opposition to score.... Has it ever occurred to him that Cornell must score in the OT to actually win the game?

And, their failure to close out games? Does anyone think that maybe, just maybe, this would be less of a problem if they continued to FORECHECK and kept the puck in the opponents end of the ice? But, no!! In Mike's world, the team must drop back & play ONLY defense at times like that.... Hey Mike, your team no longer has the ability to play lock-down defense like they did in the early 2000's.... Wake up, Mike, or please leave!!

redice
... I am now solidly in the "Fire Schafer" crowd.

Why play overtime games when their only focus is NOT allowing their opposition to score.... Has it ever occurred to him that Cornell must score in the OT to actually win the game?

And, their failure to close out games? ....

I have seen this in some third period play this year but didn't feel that way last night. They have outshot their opponents in OT since January and I thought they had the better of RPI last night in OT. The only OT game in which we were embarrassed in the extra frame looks to have been vs BU in November. ( I certainly haven't watched every game and don't have a perfect memory of those I've seen.)

How can you use the lack of forecheck argument against a team that was, last night, tied by way of an extra attacker?

The main problem I saw last night was a handful of poor passes made in the defensive zone. The rest looked like a hockey game.

Kasdorf is a good goalie who we solved last night with difficulty. EA goals are frustrating as hell but if I had any criticism of coach last night it is that he didn't pull Gillam in the final seconds of OT. That does show a defensive mindset. The chance for a sixth place finish in the league would have been worth risking the loss.

hockey is a frustrating thing to watch because so many of the goals have little to do with making good passes and plays.. 3 of the 6 last night were just throw something at the net and hope it bounces the right way. the only thing you can control is the effort and last night we had good effort. we lack team speed and thats something that causes more issues for us than anything else.

marty

redice
... I am now solidly in the "Fire Schafer" crowd.

Why play overtime games when their only focus is NOT allowing their opposition to score.... Has it ever occurred to him that Cornell must score in the OT to actually win the game?

And, their failure to close out games? ....

I have seen this in some third period play this year but didn't feel that way last night. They have outshot their opponents in OT since January and I thought they had the better of RPI last night in OT. The only OT game in which we were embarrassed in the extra frame looks to have been vs BU in November. ( I certainly haven't watched every game and don't have a perfect memory of those I've seen.)

How can you use the lack of forecheck argument against a team that was, last night, tied by way of an extra attacker?

The main problem I saw last night was a handful of poor passes made in the defensive zone. The rest looked like a hockey game.

Kasdorf is a good goalie who we solved last night with difficulty. EA goals are frustrating as hell but if I had any criticism of coach last night it is that he didn't pull Gillam in the final seconds of OT. That does show a defensive mindset. The chance for a sixth place finish in the league would have been worth risking the loss.

Nowhere, did I make any specific reference or inference to last night's game.

Yes, it was a tough way to end the regular season and made my Schafer-frustration boil over. But, my comments refer to his body of work this year. He and his style are no longer relevent in this conference. His giant players are not allowed (by officials/league rules) to play the style of the Doug Murray/Stephen Bâby CU teams. Mike is still foolishly trying to build that type of team. All the while, smaller, quicker teams like Yale are skating circles around them. To Mike, I say: change, or move on.... PLEASE!! This coming from a long time Schafer supporter. The game has past him by....

upprdeck
hockey is a frustrating thing to watch because so many of the goals have little to do with making good passes and plays.. 3 of the 6 last night were just throw something at the net and hope it bounces the right way. the only thing you can control is the effort and last night we had good effort. we lack team speed and thats something that causes more issues for us than anything else.

Thanks for the stately words of wisdom..... I've just completed my 49th season of watching CU hockey. Yep, I've seen/felt it all. However, I don't profess to know it all. But, I'm pretty sure it's time for Schafer to go. That lack of team speed is his responsibility. The conference is moving away from the style that gained Mike success 10+ years ago. For him to continue to recruit these giant players is insane. Admittedly, Angello may be an exception to that.... He is just a great player, big or small.

it seems that if this team had just held on to wins when skating 6 on 5 we would be looking at a top 2-3 finish in the league with no stle change at all.. about 2 more min of solid d and we are top 10 in the country.

upprdeck
it seems that if this team had just held on to wins when skating 6 on 5 we would be looking at a top 2-3 finish in the league with no stle change at all.. about 2 more min of solid d and we are top 10 in the country.

This is not directed specifically at you, upprdeck... I've read this forum forum for quite some time... We cannot just wish for these things. We can't continue to say that things went well except (you fill in the blank here)... It doesn't matter if we outshot them, if we lost..... We have to take off the rose-tinted glasses and realize that we're not good enough. The record shows that. The arguable point is that, with Schafer as coach, we never will be good enough. He does not seem willing to adapt to today's reality. The ECACH world has passed him by. Cornell Hockey is "special" no more.

of course a coaching change would fix the issue.. its worked so well in all the other cornell sports. we sucked far worse until he got here. the biggest issue is being unable to get any of the real impact players into school here that could make a difference.

upprdeck
of course a coaching change would fix the issue.. its worked so well in all the other cornell sports. we sucked far worse until he got here. the biggest issue is being unable to get any of the real impact players into school here that could make a difference.

History shows that the last men's hockey coaching change was perfect!! The talent was there. A new coach came in, made a few changes, & we're back-to-back ECAC Champions. I'm not suggesting that the current team is completely devoid of talent. There is enough talent that a new coaching philosophy could turn it around quickly. After all, look how good they looked before Christmas. If they are "allowed" to play that way, they can/will.

In closing, the last change was perfect for that moment.. Time to move on.....

redice

upprdeck
of course a coaching change would fix the issue.. its worked so well in all the other cornell sports. we sucked far worse until he got here. the biggest issue is being unable to get any of the real impact players into school here that could make a difference.

History shows that the last men's hockey coaching change was perfect!! The talent was there. A new coach came in, made a few changes, & we're back-to-back ECAC Champions. I'm not suggesting that the current team is completely devoid of talent. There is enough talent that a new coaching philosophy could turn it around quickly. After all, look how good they looked before Christmas. If they are "allowed" to play that way, they can/will.

In closing, the last change was perfect for that moment.. Time to move on.....

I'd give him one more year. This year's team is very young and is being carried by its freshmen. It's expected that they'd tire down the stretch.

I find it hard to agree that the wheels are coming off the bus in a season that saw seven OT ties and 3 OT losses.

Yes, without question it was a frustrating season to be a fan, especially in light of how well the season started, and some of the high points. But I just don't think it's fair to say things like the team isn't good at playing hockey and the coach has to go (or should be given one more year) when so many losses so easily could have been wins.

There is a ridiculous amount of luck involved in hockey. If the team was getting blown out by three or four goals almost every night then I might be able to understand where the kind of talk in this thread is coming from. But seven ties, 3 OT losses, and an additional 1-goal loss (to RPI), and frankly I just don't get it.

andyw2100
I find it hard to agree that the wheels are coming off the bus in a season that saw seven OT ties and 3 OT losses.

Yes, without question it was a frustrating season to be a fan, especially in light of how well the season started, and some of the high points. But I just don't think it's fair to say things like the team isn't good at playing hockey and the coach has to go (or should be given one more year) when so many losses so easily could have been wins.

There is a ridiculous amount of luck involved in hockey. If the team was getting blown out by three or four goals almost every night then I might be able to understand where the kind of talk in this thread is coming from. But seven ties, 3 OT losses, and an additional 1-goal loss (to RPI), and frankly I just don't get it.

Just about all of our wins were close 1-goal games too. Overall, our luck has evened out (eg. we are 3-3-7 in OT). I think our record is at least as good as our team is, at this point.

andyw2100
I find it hard to agree that the wheels are coming off the bus in a season that saw seven OT ties and 3 OT losses.

Yes, without question it was a frustrating season to be a fan, especially in light of how well the season started, and some of the high points. But I just don't think it's fair to say things like the team isn't good at playing hockey and the coach has to go (or should be given one more year) when so many losses so easily could have been wins.

There is a ridiculous amount of luck involved in hockey. If the team was getting blown out by three or four goals almost every night then I might be able to understand where the kind of talk in this thread is coming from. But seven ties, 3 OT losses, and an additional 1-goal loss (to RPI), and frankly I just don't get it.

Part of it is that we haven't been that great lately.

Part of it is that, well, we're pretty spoiled. The last three years have been pretty meh. 15-16-3, 17-10-5, 11-14-6. 17-10-5 isn't bad, and if I remember, we came up just short of the tournament that year. The other two years weren't great. Nobody likes going under .500.

But I feel like a lot of the discussions here treat that as our floor. It's possible for storied teams to suck. Wisconsin somehow went 4-26-5 last year. 4-26-5!!!! How does that happen? Could you imagine the calls for Schafer's head if we won four games?

This isn't to say Schafer should necessarily stay. I'd keep him, but I kinda hate change. Just keep in mind that a couple years slightly under .500 aren't the end of the world.

Dafatone
This isn't to say Schafer should necessarily stay. I'd keep him, but I kinda hate change. Just keep in mind that a couple years slightly under .500 aren't the end of the world.

Particularly when most of us were expecting a .500-ish team coming into this season. The distribution of wins got our hopes up early and then dashed them in the second half.

BearLover

andyw2100
I find it hard to agree that the wheels are coming off the bus in a season that saw seven OT ties and 3 OT losses.

Yes, without question it was a frustrating season to be a fan, especially in light of how well the season started, and some of the high points. But I just don't think it's fair to say things like the team isn't good at playing hockey and the coach has to go (or should be given one more year) when so many losses so easily could have been wins.

There is a ridiculous amount of luck involved in hockey. If the team was getting blown out by three or four goals almost every night then I might be able to understand where the kind of talk in this thread is coming from. But seven ties, 3 OT losses, and an additional 1-goal loss (to RPI), and frankly I just don't get it.

Just about all of our wins were close 1-goal games too. Overall, our luck has evened out (eg. we are 3-3-7 in OT). I think our record is at least as good as our team is, at this point.

Exactly!! We have to score more goals. Under Mike Schafer, I don't see that happening. Yes, defense wins championships. inn the past, I've accepted that philosophy and his low-scoring style in hopes of titles at the end of the year. The truth is, the championships are becoming pretty infrequent and the ultimate nat'l title seems impossible, at this point.

And, in some games (like Yale), it seems rather embarrassing to watch our bigger, slower players chasing along behind Yale's players, who have the puck. It doesn't look well for CU!!! Trust me, that's not about luck, bounces of the puck... We're getting our butts kicked at times like that. And Mike's not recruiting to fight it. He's still recruiting those big, slow-ish guys... It don't get it!!

BearLover
Just about all of our wins were close 1-goal games too. Overall, our luck has evened out (eg. we are 3-3-7 in OT). I think our record is at least as good as our team is, at this point.

Agreed. This is a .500 team. It just got there in a really weird way.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." ~G.Santayana



A little hysterical perspective?

redice
Exactly!! We have to score more goals. Under Mike Schafer, I don't see that happening. Yes, defense wins championships. inn the past, I've accepted that philosophy and his low-scoring style in hopes of titles at the end of the year. The truth is, the championships are becoming pretty infrequent and the ultimate nat'l title seems impossible, at this point.

And, in some games (like Yale), it seems rather embarrassing to watch our bigger, slower players chasing along behind Yale's players, who have the puck. It doesn't look well for CU!!! Trust me, that's not about luck, bounces of the puck... We're getting our butts kicked at times like that. And Mike's not recruiting to fight it. He's still recruiting those big, slow-ish guys... It don't get it!!

The recruited forwards are getting smaller. Hopefully that means quicker and higher skilled. This year they brought in Vanderlaan (5-7) and Lalor (5-11). (Though Angello and Starrett are both 6-5, I'm not going to complain about them).

Coming soon we've got a whole bunch of smaller forwards: Donaldson at 5-6, Hoffman and Regush at 5-9, Murphy and Nelson at 5-10. Of 16 commitments only one is over 6-2 (and he's just 6-3). On the current roster of 28, 13 are over 6-2, and that includes 4 at 6-5 and Hillbrich at whatever ridiculous height he is.

Now, just because the personnel profile is changing doesn't necessarily mean the playing style will, but I'd say it's a good bet. The team I saw this weekend was far more up tempo and aggressive -- they aren't playing The System anymore. The problem is they aren't actually finishing on the chances they create, but they are creating chances. The big problem this past weekend was bad decisions and defensive breakdowns -- exactly the sort of risk you take when you open things up.

They did have 69 shots this weekend; many from in close. That's good pressure.

Trotsky

BearLover
Just about all of our wins were close 1-goal games too. Overall, our luck has evened out (eg. we are 3-3-7 in OT). I think our record is at least as good as our team is, at this point.

Agreed. This is a .500 team. It just got there in a really weird way.

So......We are accepting of this? Not me!!

No, "the wheels are not coming off." No, "it's not the end of the world." But, the words ".500 team", wreak of mediocrity to me... Assigning those words to Cornell Hockey gives me indigestion...... Time for a change!!

redice

Trotsky

BearLover
Just about all of our wins were close 1-goal games too. Overall, our luck has evened out (eg. we are 3-3-7 in OT). I think our record is at least as good as our team is, at this point.

Agreed. This is a .500 team. It just got there in a really weird way.

So......We are accepting of this? Not me!!

No, "the wheels are not coming off." No, "it's not the end of the world." But, the words ".500 team", wreak of mediocrity to me... Assigning those words to Cornell Hockey gives me indigestion...... Time for a change!!

Show me where I accepted it. It's a simple observation.

"Time for a change" without consideration of what the change is or the probability of its success is not a strategy.

If you want to know what our problem is, this is a good place to start. Typically, dominant teams -- even well balanced teams that play just as hard on defense as offense like the Union championship team -- have one of two forwards who are deadly. They change the entire complexion of a game.

Trotsky

redice

Trotsky

BearLover
Just about all of our wins were close 1-goal games too. Overall, our luck has evened out (eg. we are 3-3-7 in OT). I think our record is at least as good as our team is, at this point.

Agreed. This is a .500 team. It just got there in a really weird way.

So......We are accepting of this? Not me!!

No, "the wheels are not coming off." No, "it's not the end of the world." But, the words ".500 team", wreak of mediocrity to me... Assigning those words to Cornell Hockey gives me indigestion...... Time for a change!!

Show me where I accepted it. It's a simple observation.

"Time for a change" without consideration of what the change is or the probability of its success is not a strategy.

If you want to know what our problem is, this is a good place to start. Typically, dominant teams -- even well balanced teams that play just as hard on defense as offense like the Union championship team -- have one of two forwards who are deadly. They change the entire complexion of a game.[/quote

Proposing that we stay with "the good ship Schafer", would seem like acceptance of the current status quo. After all, it IS Mike who put this team together & coaches it.

Yes, there is a degree of uncertainty in a coaching change, ANY coaching change. While keeping Mike is more of a certainty, it is a certainty that no longer brings me comfort.

We are of differing opinions. That's fine with me. Since I don't think Andy thinks or cares enough about hockey, I doubt Mike will lose his job any time soon. My opinion will remain moot.

redice
Yes, there is a degree of uncertainty in a coaching change, ANY coaching change. While keeping Mike is more of a certainty, it is a certainty that no longer brings me comfort.

We are of differing opinions. That's fine with me. Since I don't think Andy thinks or cares enough about hockey, I doubt Mike will lose his job any time soon. My opinion will remain moot.

Not just moot, but useless without some explanation of how it will help. You're making two unsupported assumptions when you argue for Mike's release: First, that he hasn't been trying to recruit smaller, faster players with sharper shooting skills to complement his traditional stifling defense; second, if he has been trying and failing (or if he hasn't been trying), that someone else will have better luck at it than he does despite recruiting for an Ivy League institution where every single player will play fewer games during a college career than at any of the 54 non-Ivy schools. Do you have any evidence for either proposition?

I don't think Mike is going anywhere. Andy doesn't fire coaches based on their records. Witness Dave Archer (5-25) and Bill Courtney (26-56 in Ivies) somehow still coaching on East Hill.

Here's some perspective on what could happen: After the 2013 Maine fired Tim Whitehead who had a 250-171-54 record in 12 seasons, although the team struggled in his last few seasons. Right now they are 8-22-6 and #52 in Pairwise. Sure, I'd like to be better than #20, but given the competitive scenario on recruiting, scholarships, academic standards, etc., I'm certainly not pushing for a coaching change. One or two well placed goals this year (e.g. win the first Q'pac game and also get the bonus bonus that come with that) and we'd all be feeling a lot better.

Trotsky

redice
Exactly!! We have to score more goals. Under Mike Schafer, I don't see that happening. Yes, defense wins championships. inn the past, I've accepted that philosophy and his low-scoring style in hopes of titles at the end of the year. The truth is, the championships are becoming pretty infrequent and the ultimate nat'l title seems impossible, at this point.

And, in some games (like Yale), it seems rather embarrassing to watch our bigger, slower players chasing along behind Yale's players, who have the puck. It doesn't look well for CU!!! Trust me, that's not about luck, bounces of the puck... We're getting our butts kicked at times like that. And Mike's not recruiting to fight it. He's still recruiting those big, slow-ish guys... It don't get it!!

The recruited forwards are getting smaller. Hopefully that means quicker and higher skilled. This year they brought in Vanderlaan (5-7) and Lalor (5-11). (Though Angello and Starrett are both 6-5, I'm not going to complain about them).

Coming soon we've got a whole bunch of smaller forwards: Donaldson at 5-6, Hoffman and Regush at 5-9, Murphy and Nelson at 5-10. Of 16 commitments only one is over 6-2 (and he's just 6-3). On the current roster of 28, 13 are over 6-2, and that includes 4 at 6-5 and Hillbrich at whatever ridiculous height he is.

Now, just because the personnel profile is changing doesn't necessarily mean the playing style will, but I'd say it's a good bet. The team I saw this weekend was far more up tempo and aggressive -- they aren't playing The System anymore. The problem is they aren't actually finishing on the chances they create, but they are creating chances. The big problem this past weekend was bad decisions and defensive breakdowns -- exactly the sort of risk you take when you open things up.

They did have 69 shots this weekend; many from in close. That's good pressure.

I've watched some clips of Jeff Malott playing for Brooks in the AJHL, and he sure seems to be the type of forward that we've been chasing around against Q, Yale, Union, etc. Of course they don't seem to play much defense in the AJHL, but nonetheless he shows real skill and may represent a change in the typical forward profile that we've seen over the past few years. Time of course will tell.

CAS
I don't think Mike is going anywhere. Andy doesn't fire coaches based on their records. Witness Dave Archer (5-25) and Bill Courtney (26-56 in Ivies) somehow still coaching on East Hill.

I'm sure he also doesn't make decisions based on mostly myopic fan bloviations on "Call for Coaches Heads Forum" by its 15 participants.

But hey, lets keep throwing up repetitive polls and threads every month and keep banging that energizer bass drum.

Beeeej

redice
Yes, there is a degree of uncertainty in a coaching change, ANY coaching change. While keeping Mike is more of a certainty, it is a certainty that no longer brings me comfort.

We are of differing opinions. That's fine with me. Since I don't think Andy thinks or cares enough about hockey, I doubt Mike will lose his job any time soon. My opinion will remain moot.

Not just moot, but useless without some explanation of how it will help. You're making two unsupported assumptions when you argue for Mike's release: First, that he hasn't been trying to recruit smaller, faster players with sharper shooting skills to complement his traditional stifling defense; second, if he has been trying and failing (or if he hasn't been trying), that someone else will have better luck at it than he does despite recruiting for an Ivy League institution where every single player will play fewer games during a college career than at any of the 54 non-Ivy schools. Do you have any evidence for either proposition?

Spoken like the lawyer that you are!! Just because you have commanded, I am not about to put together an evidenciary package to please you.....I don't have to prove anything to you. Mike's body of work is on clear display..... Keith Allain is attracting these players to Yale... Harvard is getting their share..... So, it can be done....

redice

Beeeej

redice
Yes, there is a degree of uncertainty in a coaching change, ANY coaching change. While keeping Mike is more of a certainty, it is a certainty that no longer brings me comfort.

We are of differing opinions. That's fine with me. Since I don't think Andy thinks or cares enough about hockey, I doubt Mike will lose his job any time soon. My opinion will remain moot.

Not just moot, but useless without some explanation of how it will help. You're making two unsupported assumptions when you argue for Mike's release: First, that he hasn't been trying to recruit smaller, faster players with sharper shooting skills to complement his traditional stifling defense; second, if he has been trying and failing (or if he hasn't been trying), that someone else will have better luck at it than he does despite recruiting for an Ivy League institution where every single player will play fewer games during a college career than at any of the 54 non-Ivy schools. Do you have any evidence for either proposition?

Spoken like the lawyer that you are!! Just because you have commanded, I am not about to put together an evidenciary package to please you.....I don't have to prove anything to you. Mike's body of work is on clear display..... Keith Allain is attracting these players to Yale... Harvard is getting their share..... So, it can be done....

You don't have to be a lawyer to want people's arguments to make sense. It's increasingly obvious that yours is borne out of a combination of sheer frustration and a desire to be punitive. Your "Screw your 'logic,' I'm taking my ball and going home" response is evidence enough, thanks.

redice
Yes, it was a tough way to end the regular season and made my Schafer-frustration boil over. But, my comments refer to his body of work this year. He and his style are no longer relevent in this conference. His giant players are not allowed (by officials/league rules) to play the style of the Doug Murray/Stephen Bâby CU teams. Mike is still foolishly trying to build that type of team. All the while, smaller, quicker teams like Yale are skating circles around them. To Mike, I say: change, or move on.... PLEASE!! This coming from a long time Schafer supporter. The game has past him by....

Just a non-snarky correction (because it's a pet peeve): it's "passed"

But this old gem. I've heard this line since 1999 and the Clarkson teams of that era. We needed to get fast. The Sacchetti/Bergin oaf player style were pylons being skated and spun around by Erik Cole et al. The game and league was changing. Sure coach made gold out of coal, but he's clearly not strong in recruiting. Then what happened in the '00s?

Yale, Yale, Yale. Marsha, Marsha, Marsha. Wow, they run a scoring clinic, right? You're stuck in 2011. Yale isn't that team anymore. They currently rank 25th in team offense, barely ahead of Clarkson and Dartmouth. But you know where they are in team defense? #1, by a healthy margin. THAT'S why they are where they are right now.

Yes, we absolutely need more scoring, I'm not arguing that, and I'm as frustrated as anybody here about that. But this line of "every other team is basically a roster of Martin St. Louis-es and we're stuck in the past" is mostly BS.

RichH
Yes, we absolutely need more scoring, I'm not arguing that, and I'm as frustrated as anybody here about that. But this line of "every other team is basically a roster of Martin St. Louis-es and we're stuck in the past" is mostly BS.

On the other hand, an entire team of Martin St. Louis-es would be awfully entertaining to watch.

Rich, are you supporting the way Andy runs the athletic dept? Do you think Andy holds coaches accountable for their team's record? Who was the last coach that Andy fired because they didn't win? I am not referring to Mike and hockey, but to other programs which have abysmal records.

Beeeej

redice

Beeeej

redice
Yes, there is a degree of uncertainty in a coaching change, ANY coaching change. While keeping Mike is more of a certainty, it is a certainty that no longer brings me comfort.

We are of differing opinions. That's fine with me. Since I don't think Andy thinks or cares enough about hockey, I doubt Mike will lose his job any time soon. My opinion will remain moot.

Not just moot, but useless without some explanation of how it will help. You're making two unsupported assumptions when you argue for Mike's release: First, that he hasn't been trying to recruit smaller, faster players with sharper shooting skills to complement his traditional stifling defense; second, if he has been trying and failing (or if he hasn't been trying), that someone else will have better luck at it than he does despite recruiting for an Ivy League institution where every single player will play fewer games during a college career than at any of the 54 non-Ivy schools. Do you have any evidence for either proposition?

Spoken like the lawyer that you are!! Just because you have commanded, I am not about to put together an evidenciary package to please you.....I don't have to prove anything to you. Mike's body of work is on clear display..... Keith Allain is attracting these players to Yale... Harvard is getting their share..... So, it can be done....

You don't have to be a lawyer to want people's arguments to make sense. It's increasingly obvious that yours is borne out of a combination of sheer frustration and a desire to be punitive. Your "Screw your 'logic,' I'm taking my ball and going home" response is evidence enough, thanks.

You're jumping to a lot of conclusions here.... Yes, there is frustration on my part. No, there is nothing punitive. In fact, I'm very appreciative of what Mike Schafer has done for the hockey program. But, I believe he has failed to adjust to current realities in our conference. Thus, his time has passed. That is not punitive!!

Yes, I have "screw you" in me..... But I'm not going anywhere.....

redice

Beeeej

redice

Beeeej

redice
Yes, there is a degree of uncertainty in a coaching change, ANY coaching change. While keeping Mike is more of a certainty, it is a certainty that no longer brings me comfort.

We are of differing opinions. That's fine with me. Since I don't think Andy thinks or cares enough about hockey, I doubt Mike will lose his job any time soon. My opinion will remain moot.

Not just moot, but useless without some explanation of how it will help. You're making two unsupported assumptions when you argue for Mike's release: First, that he hasn't been trying to recruit smaller, faster players with sharper shooting skills to complement his traditional stifling defense; second, if he has been trying and failing (or if he hasn't been trying), that someone else will have better luck at it than he does despite recruiting for an Ivy League institution where every single player will play fewer games during a college career than at any of the 54 non-Ivy schools. Do you have any evidence for either proposition?

Spoken like the lawyer that you are!! Just because you have commanded, I am not about to put together an evidenciary package to please you.....I don't have to prove anything to you. Mike's body of work is on clear display..... Keith Allain is attracting these players to Yale... Harvard is getting their share..... So, it can be done....

You don't have to be a lawyer to want people's arguments to make sense. It's increasingly obvious that yours is borne out of a combination of sheer frustration and a desire to be punitive. Your "Screw your 'logic,' I'm taking my ball and going home" response is evidence enough, thanks.

You're jumping to a lot of conclusions here.... Yes, there is frustration on my part. No, there is nothing punitive. In fact, I'm very appreciative of what Mike Schafer has done for the hockey program. But, I believe he has failed to adjust to current realities in our conference. Thus, his time has passed. That is not punitive!!

Yes, I have "screw you" in me..... But I'm not going anywhere.....

Jumping to conclusions? Heavens. Thank goodness I'm the only one.

Beeeej

On the other hand, an entire team of Martin St. Louis-es would be awfully entertaining to watch.

And there's a great point. This team is brutal to watch, especially once we're down by two goals. Exciting when we're UP by one, waiting for the EAG in the last minutes of play.

TimV
This team is brutal to watch, especially once we're down by two goals

During the slide this year I mentioned to Dr. Mrs. that this was the first time watching games wasn't entertaining any more. Even during the absolute nadir of my fan tenure, the 11-game 1993 losing streak, it was still fun. During the retrenchment phase this year when Mike tried to pull the team back to solidify the defense and only succeeded in generating a stifling, monotonous entropic field of sadness perpetually 1 goal worse than the opponent, I had an epiphany that I wasn't watching for the game itself anymore, but dutifully doing my sentence until The Reprieve.

If I had an audience with the coaching staff, I would politely request a more entertaining product on the ice. Yes, winning is of course the biggest determinant of that, but given the choice of trying to win 2-1 or 4-3, I cannot tell a lie: I'm ready for some 4-3. It doesn't have to be the late 70's 8-7 insanity. But during the times this season when the team played open, both generating and giving up more good chances in a few shifts than generally happens during an entire game, so help me I was pumped! I understand the beauty of a shutout, but this team has now been playing in a minor chord for what feels like decades. I would like something chromatic now and then, please.

Trotsky

TimV
This team is brutal to watch, especially once we're down by two goals

During the slide this year I mentioned to Dr. Mrs. that this was the first time watching games wasn't entertaining any more. Even during the absolute nadir of my fan tenure, the 11-game 1993 losing streak, it was still fun. During the retrenchment phase this year when Mike tried to pull the team back to solidify the defense and only succeeded in generating a stifling, monotonous entropic field of sadness perpetually 1 goal worse than the opponent, I had an epiphany that I wasn't watching for the game itself anymore, but dutifully doing my sentence until The Reprieve.

If I had an audience with the coaching staff, I would politely request a more entertaining product on the ice. Yes, winning is of course the biggest determinant of that, but given the choice of trying to win 2-1 or 4-3, I cannot tell a lie: I'm ready for some 4-3. It doesn't have to be the late 70's 8-7 insanity. But during the times this season when the team played open, both generating and giving up more good chances in a few shifts than generally happens during an entire game, so help me I was pumped! I understand the beauty of a shutout, but this team has now been playing in a minor chord for what feels like decades. I would like something chromatic now and then, please.

Agreed..

Trotsky

TimV
This team is brutal to watch, especially once we're down by two goals

During the slide this year I mentioned to Dr. Mrs. that this was the first time watching games wasn't entertaining any more. Even during the absolute nadir of my fan tenure, the 11-game 1993 losing streak, it was still fun. During the retrenchment phase this year when Mike tried to pull the team back to solidify the defense and only succeeded in generating a stifling, monotonous entropic field of sadness perpetually 1 goal worse than the opponent, I had an epiphany that I wasn't watching for the game itself anymore, but dutifully doing my sentence until The Reprieve.

If I had an audience with the coaching staff, I would politely request a more entertaining product on the ice. Yes, winning is of course the biggest determinant of that, but given the choice of trying to win 2-1 or 4-3, I cannot tell a lie: I'm ready for some 4-3. It doesn't have to be the late 70's 8-7 insanity. But during the times this season when the team played open, both generating and giving up more good chances in a few shifts than generally happens during an entire game, so help me I was pumped! I understand the beauty of a shutout, but this team has now been playing in a minor chord for what feels like decades. I would like something chromatic now and then, please.

I'd be happy with a return to the good ol' 9-0, 14-2, 19-1 days.

Schafer is starting to bring in smaller, speedier players. But does anyone think he can actually coach them?

shouldn't we wait till the end of the season for the post-mortem?

Trotsky
The recruited forwards are getting smaller. Hopefully that means quicker and higher skilled. This year they brought in Vanderlaan (5-7) and Lalor (5-11). (Though Angello and Starrett are both 6-5, I'm not going to complain about them).

Coming soon we've got a whole bunch of smaller forwards: Donaldson at 5-6, Hoffman and Regush at 5-9, Murphy and Nelson at 5-10. Of 16 commitments only one is over 6-2 (and he's just 6-3). On the current roster of 28, 13 are over 6-2, and that includes 4 at 6-5 and Hillbrich at whatever ridiculous height he is.

Now, just because the personnel profile is changing doesn't necessarily mean the playing style will, but I'd say it's a good bet. The team I saw this weekend was far more up tempo and aggressive -- they aren't playing The System anymore. The problem is they aren't actually finishing on the chances they create, but they are creating chances. The big problem this past weekend was bad decisions and defensive breakdowns -- exactly the sort of risk you take when you open things up.

They did have 69 shots this weekend; many from in close. That's good pressure.

That's an interesting observation and I'm curious to see how that translates, if at all, to Mike's playing style. I fully expect Mike to receive an extension. Given the youth of this year's squad, and Andy's track record hiring coaches, handing Mike a couple more years might be for the best. He's got to know better than any of us that he has one of the slowest teams in college hockey and it's killing his NCAA chances. Most ECAC teams have better speed among their defensive corp than Cornell does among its forwards. It's become brutal to watch.

The team's performance in 2016 has been dreadful. They haven't won a game at Lynah in almost two months. They're 0-4-2 at home since Merrimack and have been beaten by an aggregate 11-24 score. Given Union's last three games at Lynah I have a hard time believing the team is playing past Saturday. Scoring first and winning Friday is imperative if they hope to advance.

PS, Regush is listed at 6' on his team's roster.

CAS
Rich, are you supporting the way Andy runs the athletic dept? Do you think Andy holds coaches accountable for their team's record? Who was the last coach that Andy fired because they didn't win? I am not referring to Mike and hockey, but to other programs which have abysmal records.

I never have. I have no idea, as it depends how you define "hold accountable," but I also believe that a team's record isn't a be-all/end-all measurement of success. I also believe that the AD doesn't treat all athletic teams equally. Lastly, I don't know, and I'm too busy to look it up.

BearLover
Schafer is starting to bring in smaller, speedier players. But does anyone think he can actually coach them?

Yes, some people do. Do you?

BearLover
Schafer is starting to bring in smaller, speedier players. But does anyone think he can actually coach them?

One of the coaches is one of the best small players we've ever had.

Trotsky

BearLover
Schafer is starting to bring in smaller, speedier players. But does anyone think he can actually coach them?

One of the coaches is one of the best small players we've ever had.

Knopp, Vesce, Scott, and Gallagher. All 100+ career point marks for small guys, spanning each "era" of Schafer. And now Vanderlaan looks like a very good small player.

Given the turmoil at the head of the University I suspect that no one is thinking about changes in Athletics in the very near term. Regardless of the record the current AD will not make any changes in the Men's Hockey leadership this year since that would bring the Eye of Day Hall on him. Doing nothing is probably his best bet, the only question is how long the extension will be.

marty

BearLover
Schafer is starting to bring in smaller, speedier players. But does anyone think he can actually coach them?

Yes, some people do. Do you?

No idea. He'd have to completely revamp his system if these players become the norm.

Trotsky

BearLover
Schafer is starting to bring in smaller, speedier players. But does anyone think he can actually coach them?

One of the coaches is one of the best small players we've ever had.

Oh, I'm aware, but he's only an assistant. It's still Schafer's system.