Future Coaching?

BearLover

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.

I'll take a friendly exception to the phrase "only an assistant." I think the strengths of the assistant coaches in college hockey matter a great deal, from established recruiting relationships to application and teaching of on-ice skill/conditioning drills during practices to simple motivation and/or communication with student-athlete leadership. There are those of us here who give varying degrees of credit to Brent Brekke and Jamie Russell during the modern "glory years." Additionally, Casey was known for his recruiting prowess that secured a stretch of national success for Ohio State, and during his time here brought some in-roads to Eastern talent. Ever wonder why CU's roster is currently over 50% USA kids? (I feel that started when Syer joined the staff). Odd to say, but once Willcox & Knisley graduate, Gillam will be the only product of the BCHL left on the roster.

Personally, I wouldn't mind if somehow an offensive specialist joined the staff. Somebody who can work with the players to overcome what I see as our three weaknesses: an inability to handle an aggressive forecheck in our own zone, a way to defeat the left-wing lock regularly, and a more goal-oriented, confident passing plan in the o-zone. I'm more pleased with our performance on face-offs than I have been, so I've removed that from my wish-list.

I still don't understand how people can still imply that Schafer hasn't changed. The way the team tries to play now is nothing like when he came in the mid-90s. Nor is it like the glory days of 2003. He is playing a much more uptempo game and when he finds a line that can do it, the "JAM" line, he keeps them together and lets them go. He has been mixing and matching other players, mainly because he can't find a good combo. If we had 3 lines like them, don't you think our "style" and flow would be much different? Kubiak has blossomed this year. He had 1 goal in each of his first 2 years. Don't you think that the new line-mates allowed his talent to show?

Have you watched McCrea play? He's a great D'man with terrific offensive talent.

No, there's no doubt in my mind that Schafer wants to play a more uptempo game. We just need to give some time to assemble more of the right kind of players. I'm sure that he thought he had them with last years seniors, but he didn't. As I posted on the Awards Thread, "Along the Boards" rates CU's freshmen class #1 in the ECAC. It's not surprising that 3 of our top 4 scorers, the fourth is Kubiak, are freshmen. I hope we can get more like those.

With talented freshmen like that the AD would be crazy to not extend Schafer's contract and see what a few more years would bring.

I was going to make it a separate post, but it's okay here. For all those who feel we can get a better coach, what coaches in the ECAC have show the kind of consistent, long term (at least 5 years) success that you think we're lacking? Yale, yes. Q, yes, but I wouldn't take him. SLU, maybe, but it's still too early to tell. Do you think there are other coaches that you'd trade for? Not I.

Jim Hyla
I still don't understand how people can still imply that Schafer hasn't changed.

It's easy to ignore the changes when you are frustrated with the results. Especially when the process doesn't match what onlookers would like to see. While Cornell has certainly changed it's sty;e of play over Schafer's tenure I think it's clear that Mike will always be a defense first coach. That's easy to criticize when the goals aren't coming.

Jim Hyla
No, there's no doubt in my mind that Schafer wants to play a more uptempo game.

I think it's entirely plausible that Schafer wants to play the same physical cycling style that worked a decade or more ago. But he's smart enough to have changed in response to the way the game has developed. The question is whether he can and will adapt enough to field a top ranked team.

Personally I am very encouraged by the play of this year's freshman class. I think it's something to build on.

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.

Beautifully stated. They're just not as much fun to watch, win or lose.

Jim Hyla
I still don't understand how people can still imply that Schafer hasn't changed. The way the team tries to play now is nothing like when he came in the mid-90s. Nor is it like the glory days of 2003. He is playing a much more uptempo game and when he finds a line that can do it, the "JAM" line, he keeps them together and lets them go. He has been mixing and matching other players, mainly because he can't find a good combo. If we had 3 lines like them, don't you think our "style" and flow would be much different? Kubiak has blossomed this year. He had 1 goal in each of his first 2 years. Don't you think that the new line-mates allowed his talent to show?

Have you watched McCrea play? He's a great D'man with terrific offensive talent.

No, there's no doubt in my mind that Schafer wants to play a more uptempo game. We just need to give some time to assemble more of the right kind of players. I'm sure that he thought he had them with last years seniors, but he didn't. As I posted on the Awards Thread, "Along the Boards" rates CU's freshmen class #1 in the ECAC. It's not surprising that 3 of our top 4 scorers, the fourth is Kubiak, are freshmen. I hope we can get more like those.

With talented freshmen like that the AD would be crazy to not extend Schafer's contract and see what a few more years would bring.

I was going to make it a separate post, but it's okay here. For all those who feel we can get a better coach, what coaches in the ECAC have show the kind of consistent, long term (at least 5 years) success that you think we're lacking? Yale, yes. Q, yes, but I wouldn't take him. SLU, maybe, but it's still too early to tell. Do you think there are other coaches that you'd trade for? Not I.

Schafer literally stated after last season ended that he tried new things, they failed, and that he's reverting to his old system. I don't know how generally he was speaking or if he was only speaking about one strategy in particular (forechecking, perhaps). And if you listen to the player interviews, it's all about "being strong on D" and "sticking to the system." Again, I don't know if that system is the same system Schafer employed in 2002, but at the very least it's facially similar, and the players he has are almost carbon copies of those of Schafer's entire tenure. Sure, there's the occasional Vanderlaan; there's also the occasional Roeszler, Gallagher, Vesce, etc.

The closest thing we've had to an up-tempo style of play was last year's senior class, and that ended in complete disaster.

BearLover

Jim Hyla
I still don't understand how people can still imply that Schafer hasn't changed. The way the team tries to play now is nothing like when he came in the mid-90s. Nor is it like the glory days of 2003. He is playing a much more uptempo game and when he finds a line that can do it, the "JAM" line, he keeps them together and lets them go. He has been mixing and matching other players, mainly because he can't find a good combo. If we had 3 lines like them, don't you think our "style" and flow would be much different? Kubiak has blossomed this year. He had 1 goal in each of his first 2 years. Don't you think that the new line-mates allowed his talent to show?

Have you watched McCrea play? He's a great D'man with terrific offensive talent.

No, there's no doubt in my mind that Schafer wants to play a more uptempo game. We just need to give some time to assemble more of the right kind of players. I'm sure that he thought he had them with last years seniors, but he didn't. As I posted on the Awards Thread, "Along the Boards" rates CU's freshmen class #1 in the ECAC. It's not surprising that 3 of our top 4 scorers, the fourth is Kubiak, are freshmen. I hope we can get more like those.

With talented freshmen like that the AD would be crazy to not extend Schafer's contract and see what a few more years would bring.

I was going to make it a separate post, but it's okay here. For all those who feel we can get a better coach, what coaches in the ECAC have show the kind of consistent, long term (at least 5 years) success that you think we're lacking? Yale, yes. Q, yes, but I wouldn't take him. SLU, maybe, but it's still too early to tell. Do you think there are other coaches that you'd trade for? Not I.

Schafer literally stated after last season ended that he tried new things, they failed, and that he's reverting to his old system. I don't know how generally he was speaking or if he was only speaking about one strategy in particular (forechecking, perhaps). And if you listen to the player interviews, it's all about "being strong on D" and "sticking to the system." Again, I don't know if that system is the same system Schafer employed in 2002, but at the very least it's facially similar, and the players he has are almost carbon copies of those of Schafer's entire tenure. Sure, there's the occasional Vanderlaan; there's also the occasional Roezler, Gallager, Vesce, etc.

The closest thing we've had to an up-tempo style of play was last year's senior class, and that ended in complete disaster.

I'm not sure what the precise change was (I think this was discussed at some point), but I don't think it was necessarily one of tempo. Something with the forecheck, maybe?

This year, we seem to be playing a balanced game. We're putting enough shots on net most games. There are definite issues, sure. We're too passive towards the end of games, especially with a lead. I think this has more to do with young players tiring than the system, but it's both. We kinda suck at clearing the zone and effectively breaking out, which is keeping us pinned in our own end. And we seem to be a little lost on how to get shots on net from the point, especially on the power play. There's a LOT of holding on to the puck, waiting, then deciding to shoot and firing off defenders' ankles. We need to be making more quick decisions and one timed shots and passes, rather than waiting for an open lane that never comes.

But we're an okay young team. That always bodes well. No one's happy with 8th in the ECAC, but the ECAC's been weird this season. We finished at 22 points in 22 games. That's a .500 season. Obviously, we'd like to do better. But it could be a lot worse.

Of course, it could also be a lot better. I say Schafer gets at least one more year to see what he can do developing the young talent.

It's really, really, REALLY weird to see people excited about how small incoming players are. Not wrong. Just weird.

Jim Hyla
I still don't understand how people can still imply that Schafer hasn't changed. The way the team tries to play now is nothing like when he came in the mid-90s. Nor is it like the glory days of 2003. He is playing a much more uptempo game and when he finds a line that can do it, the "JAM" line, he keeps them together and lets them go. He has been mixing and matching other players, mainly because he can't find a good combo. If we had 3 lines like them, don't you think our "style" and flow would be much different? Kubiak has blossomed this year. He had 1 goal in each of his first 2 years. Don't you think that the new line-mates allowed his talent to show?

Have you watched McCrea play? He's a great D'man with terrific offensive talent.

No, there's no doubt in my mind that Schafer wants to play a more uptempo game. We just need to give some time to assemble more of the right kind of players. I'm sure that he thought he had them with last years seniors, but he didn't. As I posted on the Awards Thread, "Along the Boards" rates CU's freshmen class #1 in the ECAC. It's not surprising that 3 of our top 4 scorers, the fourth is Kubiak, are freshmen. I hope we can get more like those.

With talented freshmen like that the AD would be crazy to not extend Schafer's contract and see what a few more years would bring.

I was going to make it a separate post, but it's okay here. For all those who feel we can get a better coach, what coaches in the ECAC have show the kind of consistent, long term (at least 5 years) success that you think we're lacking? Yale, yes. Q, yes, but I wouldn't take him. SLU, maybe, but it's still too early to tell. Do you think there are other coaches that you'd trade for? Not I.

I say hire Mike Eaves. He won it all.

Dafatone

It's really, really, REALLY weird to see people excited about how small incoming players are. Not wrong. Just weird.

Well, they're using size as a proxy for speed, quickness, and stick handling. Of course, the new crop of small players may be just as slow, lethargic, and unable to stick handle. Time will tell.

The lack of development of last years senior class was much more discouraging than anything Schafer has done this year. The fact that a team mostly composed of Freshman got within a goal of the Frozen Four only to see the players perform no better 3 seasons later was unacceptable (see Capt. John McCarron). Also as others have said Cornell hockey is boring. Look at what Ghost is doing at the next level, just like he did against us. That is the style of play that current students are accustomed to. Most students don't even remember the 90s devils teams...

cuhockey93
The lack of development of last years senior class was much more discouraging than anything Schafer has done this year. The fact that a team mostly composed of Freshman got within a goal of the Frozen Four only to see the players perform no better 3 seasons later was unacceptable (see Capt. John McCarron). Also as others have said Cornell hockey is boring. Look at what Ghost is doing at the next level, just like he did against us. That is the style of play that current students are accustomed to. Most students don't even remember the 90s devils teams...

And look how Union had fallen since Ghost flew. They were fortunate to grab him. I think I remember reading that he was under the radar of most division one programs. Good recruiting can find overlooked gems. Let us pray.

cuhockey93
The lack of development of last years senior class was much more discouraging than anything Schafer has done this year. The fact that a team mostly composed of Freshman got within a goal of the Frozen Four only to see the players perform no better 3 seasons later was unacceptable (see Capt. John Mccarran).

Just complete fiction. Let's see who was on that "team composed of freshmen" that wasn't there three seasons later:

Goalie:
Andy Iles (SO)

Three top scorers:
Greg Miller (Jr)
Sean Collins (Sr)
Dustin Mowrey (So)

Two freshmen (effectively, in the first case):
Joel Lowry (who scored more than Ferlin that year)
Brian Ferlin

Defensemen:
Nick D'Agostino (Jr)
Keri Ross (Sr)
Braden Birch (Jr)

Only Joki Ryan saw significant time at D as a frosh.

Don't get me wrong: last year's team was enormously disappointing. But I attribute some of that to losing their top scorer to "moving on" and the only other "game changer" on the team to injury a third of the way through the season. The other part of that I attribute to a team that wasn't able to pull together and realize that they were going to have to win ugly to go anywhere. That sits at the feet of that year's senior leadership.

Whether that will sit at the feet of this year's senior leadership remains to be seen.

I meant from a total number of players perspective. It was an exaggeration, but after hearing the broadcasters practically guaranteeing that Cornell would make a frozen four over the next 3 seasons following the strong post season from the freshman, it was incredibly frustrating. In terms of Senior leadership, I think making John McCarron captain after leading college hockey in penalty minutes may have had something to do with that.

That was an extremely talented team. I understand why they didn't win titles, because they happened along when Yale and Union were lights out. But I think they did seriously underperform. And they were the group that ended the feeling that we were impervious if we had a third period lead. They were the group that blew leads and lost games late -- something we just didn't do before.

The current team does it too, but this team is probably in the middle of the pack in talent. Gillam's good but not great, and the better teams find a way to come back on us just like we used to when we were the best team. While frustrating, it is understandable now. And I actually don't think the solution is a different system because we're already in transition to a faster more aggressive style, it's a lot simpler than that: better players. We're deep and our fourth liners and third pairs are actually probably better than before, but we don't have those killer players who force the other team into retreat and panic and mistakes. That's what I would like to see come back to Ithaca.

Trotsky
We're deep and our fourth liners and third pairs are actually probably better than before, but we don't have those killer players who force the other team into retreat and panic and mistakes. That's what I would like to see come back to Ithaca.

Angello and Vanderlaan (maybe Yates) are at least two (three?) big steps in the right direction, e.g., I don't cringe when I see one of them has a breakaway or is part of a 2-on-1.

Joki was a dangerous offensive D-man, but he didn't exactly work out, and we haven't had a dangerous center since Riley Nash, or maybe Iggulden and Vesce. McCrea is quite promising, and I hope the aforementioned Yates really develops in his junior and senior years. I also miss having a lights-out outside shooter like Charlie Cook, who knew enough not to blast it into opposing forwards' skates.

Scersk '97

Trotsky
We're deep and our fourth liners and third pairs are actually probably better than before, but we don't have those killer players who force the other team into retreat and panic and mistakes. That's what I would like to see come back to Ithaca.

Angello and Vanderlaan (maybe Yates) are at least two (three?) big steps in the right direction, e.g., I don't cringe when I see one of them has a breakaway or is part of a 2-on-1.

Joki was a dangerous offensive D-man, but he didn't exactly work out, and we haven't had a dangerous center since Riley Nash, or maybe Iggulden and Vesce. McCrea is quite promising, and I hope the aforementioned Yates really develops in his junior and senior years. I also miss having a lights-out outside shooter like Charlie Cook, who knew enough not to blast it into opposing forwards' skates.

I always thought that was going to be Patrick McCarron, whose lack of development is disappointing.

McCrea is amazing, and isn't he also a big surprise? I don't recall any hype about him as a recruit.

Lalor was hurt in the Fall and I've been impressed by what little I've seen, and apparently so has Schafer since he's put him into a lot of clutch situation.

Starrett seems awkward and may be the classic case of a guy growing into his body. I think he is likely to develop into a Hilbrich type guy looking for table scraps up front.

The Mitch and Anthony Show is a lot of fun. Jeff's explosion might be due to pairing, but he certainly has looked much improved. Maybe it's because the opponent has so much to worry about from his linemates that he gets a lot of freedom, but he seems to be able to go north-south more than before. (Really, so does the whole team.)

Somebody (CHN maybe) just picked us as having the best freshman class in the conference. I'm not sure how next year's incoming class looks. I assume it could be small with just 4 guys graduating, though at one point I think I counted 9 guys as at least possible incomings, before we lost 3 or maybe 4 to decommit.

Trotsky
I always thought that was going to be Patrick McCarron, whose lack of development is disappointing.

Yeah, I really don't know what's happened to McCarron. He looked like the best freshman on the team two years ago...

Scersk '97

Trotsky
We're deep and our fourth liners and third pairs are actually probably better than before, but we don't have those killer players who force the other team into retreat and panic and mistakes. That's what I would like to see come back to Ithaca.

I also miss having a lights-out outside shooter like Charlie Cook, who knew enough not to blast it into opposing forwards' skates.

I remember a blast vs Sucks in Albany.

Trotsky
Lalor was hurt in the Fall and I've been impressed by what little I've seen, and apparently so has Schafer since he's put him into a lot of clutch situation.

Agreed. At first, I thought, "What the hell? Why are we playing this freshman every week who is just back off injury over [player X]?" But, yeah, Lalor looks like the real thing.

Starrett seems awkward and may be the classic case of a guy growing into his body. I think he is likely to develop into a Hilbrich type guy looking for table scraps up front.

Definitely awkward, and he seems a bit slow. His shot choice hasn't impressed me either. I think upside is a (last season) Hilbrich.

The Mitch and Anthony Show is a lot of fun. Jeff's explosion might be due to pairing, but he certainly has looked much improved. Maybe it's because the opponent has so much to worry about from his linemates that he gets a lot of freedom, but he seems to be able to go north-south more than before. (Really, so does the whole team.)

Kubiak is definitely benefitting hugely from that pairing. He has always had some skills and was kind of wasted on the third and fourth lines, but… he's the J.C. Ruid of the JAM line. That being said, I hope that line keeps going in the exact same direction it has been. First line this year; first line next year.

marty
I remember a blast vs Sucks in Albany.

A real blast from the past

I'd love to see another bona fide scoring line emerge (I mean, who wouldn't?) to complement JAM. Call me crazy but I'd like to see Yates center for Rauter and Tschantz, if only to see what a line with absolutely no defensive ability or inclination looks like. But it would probably give Mike an aneurysm.

Trotsky
I'd love to see another bona fide scoring line emerge (I mean, who wouldn't?) to complement JAM. Call me crazy but I'd like to see Yates center for Rauter and Tschantz, if only to see what a line with absolutely no defensive ability or inclination looks like. But it would probably give Mike an aneurysm.

But then we'd get a new coach so some folks might support this plan.

KeithK

Trotsky
I'd love to see another bona fide scoring line emerge (I mean, who wouldn't?) to complement JAM. Call me crazy but I'd like to see Yates center for Rauter and Tschantz, if only to see what a line with absolutely no defensive ability or inclination looks like. But it would probably give Mike an aneurysm.

But then we'd get a new coach so some folks might support this plan.

We'd only have a change if Andy noticed.

As far as "the system" goes, it's effectively keeping opponents' chances low and generating a lot of quality chances for Cornell. They're getting a lot of shots on goal, often in close. That's what Mike has influence over. The fact that there are only a couple guys who can effectively finish those chances is the problem. Mike can't score the goals for them (nor would he have been able to when he was playing, for that matter).

Recruiting has shifted toward smaller, faster, more offensively-minded types, so hopefully more of those chances will turn into goals going forward. Recruiting is a terrible business. You have to commit to players long before they've reached their potential, hope they don't back out of verbal commitments (thanks, Ivy League), and you can't have a roster of 30 players while kicking the chaff to the curb like scholarship schools do. When players are paying their way, they expect to play. It's a nasty juggling act I don't envy. I believe, and remain hopeful, that scoring will improve in the next couple years. That Rick Bennett is the only viable candidate y'all could muster is also telling. I don't think Mike is, or should, be going anywhere and on-ice performance going forward should squelch this topic in due time.

Ah yes... The famous quote: "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

After 20+ years at the helm and a few years behind the time, Mike is finally trying to bring in smaller recruits. This may, I repeat: "may", lead to a change in their playing style. Time will tell on that one. If that is true, I will be overjoyed... Win or lose, the smaller/quicker teams are a lot more fun to watch.

As for last night's game, about mid-way through the third, I noticed CU going into a more defensive stance. I said to my friend, "You know what this means, a Union goal is coming!".... Granted, it took a Union PP, but it happened. I just do not agree with this "sit on the lead" posture that Mike takes. He obviously does not have the team to succeed at that.... So, why not just keep up the forecheck, perhaps being a little careful about making sure that Union doesn't get anyone behind your D?? And, maybe, just maybe, that forecheck might result in an additional goal for CU....Stranger things have happened. To me, this is just another example of Mike's lack of willingness to change to fit current conditions.

CowbellGuy
As far as "the system" goes, it's effectively keeping opponents' chances low and generating a lot of quality chances for Cornell. They're getting a lot of shots on goal, often in close. That's what Mike has influence over. The fact that there are only a couple guys who can effectively finish those chances is the problem. Mike can't score the goals for them (nor would he have been able to when he was playing, for that matter).

Is this true? Cornell is getting outshot more often than not, and I haven't noticed Cornell's shots being consistently better than the opposition's. I don't think the problem is finishing in close as much as it is controlling the puck through center ice and into the opponent's zone--and stopping the opponent from doing the same. That is mostly, I think, because our skaters are slower and our passes are less crisp. That results in a poor shot differential, which results in fewer goals. Once we can fire as many shots on net as our opponents, then we can talk about putting them in the net.

BearLover

CowbellGuy
As far as "the system" goes, it's effectively keeping opponents' chances low and generating a lot of quality chances for Cornell. They're getting a lot of shots on goal, often in close. That's what Mike has influence over. The fact that there are only a couple guys who can effectively finish those chances is the problem. Mike can't score the goals for them (nor would he have been able to when he was playing, for that matter).

Is this true? Cornell is getting outshot more often than not, and I haven't noticed Cornell's shots being consistently better than the opposition's. I don't think the problem is finishing in close as much as it is controlling the puck through center ice and into the opponent's zone--and stopping the opponent from doing the same. That is mostly, I think, because our skaters are slower and our passes are less crisp. That results in a poor shot differential, which results in fewer goals. Once we can fire as many shots on net as our opponents, then we can talk about putting them in the net.

But if you watched last year's team and compared it to the current team you would realize Age is right. Even without seeing the teams on ice look at the difference between the first round vs. Union for the two years. The system is working but the team isn't scoring as much as it needs to.

Also look at overtime. Saturday was the first overtime win in 2016. But with the exception of BU, Qpuke and the quick goal by St Lawrence the squad has looked good to excellent in the extra period this year. They looked better than excellent vs Providence.

As I mentioned earlier in the season, some see the glass 3/4 empty, I think it's 3/4 full. What we can't do yet is go down to the Creeker to celebrate.

marty

BearLover

CowbellGuy
As far as "the system" goes, it's effectively keeping opponents' chances low and generating a lot of quality chances for Cornell. They're getting a lot of shots on goal, often in close. That's what Mike has influence over. The fact that there are only a couple guys who can effectively finish those chances is the problem. Mike can't score the goals for them (nor would he have been able to when he was playing, for that matter).

Is this true? Cornell is getting outshot more often than not, and I haven't noticed Cornell's shots being consistently better than the opposition's. I don't think the problem is finishing in close as much as it is controlling the puck through center ice and into the opponent's zone--and stopping the opponent from doing the same. That is mostly, I think, because our skaters are slower and our passes are less crisp. That results in a poor shot differential, which results in fewer goals. Once we can fire as many shots on net as our opponents, then we can talk about putting them in the net.

But if you watched last year's team and compared it to the current team you would realize Age is right. Even without seeing the teams on ice look at the difference between the first round vs. Union for the two years. The system is working but the team isn't scoring as much as it needs to.

Schafer, in his post-game interview for one of the games in the Union playoff series last weekend (can't remember which), said Cornell actually played well in last year's series too, but the difference this year was Gillam. IMO, if the system is "working correctly" when we're getting outshot by bad teams, then the system sucks.

Shots are not a good metric. Most against have been bad angle or from far out. Quality chances are typically closer or often in Cornell's favor and matter a lot more than just shots.

CowbellGuy
Shots are not a good metric. Most against have been bad angle or from far out. Quality chances are typically closer or often in Cornell's favor and matter a lot more than just shots.

Shots -are- a good metric: [www.21stclub.com]

We've had this discussion on this site before, but I believe (someone more up to date with hockey analytics can correct me) that SOGs are still seen as the best non-possession time measure and metrics involving "quality" shots doesn't hold up as anything more than random chance.

Yeah, but those random chances are the ones that tend to go in. I'll take a bunch of long, bad angle shots against that won't go in all day long.

I don't know how to quantify it, but I feel like we've had more good chances the last few weeks than we did all season prior to that, including when we were winning.

We don't have a blue chippah closer, true, but we are getting a lot of great first looks. I feel as if it's just a matter of time* until the JAM line and the 9-15-16 line start scoring in bunches.

(* this weekend would kinda be the time to start...)

It'd be interesting to see what the shot differentials were in Schafer's best years. (Although you'd have to somehow adjust for the fact that we went into the 3rd period with the lead every game.)

BearLover
It'd be interesting to see what the shot differentials were in Schafer's best years. (Although you'd have to somehow adjust for the fact that we went into the 3rd period with the lead every game.)

Three most recent ECAC titles:

1068-753 in '03 [collegehockeystats.net]

830-1025 in '05

982-956 in 10

Chris '03

BearLover
It'd be interesting to see what the shot differentials were in Schafer's best years. (Although you'd have to somehow adjust for the fact that we went into the 3rd period with the lead every game.)

Three most recent ECAC titles:

1068-753 in '03 [collegehockeystats.net]

830-1025 in '05

982-956 in 10

Interestingly, we made it to the FF in '03, to the regional finals in '05, and to the regional semi-finals in '10.

I'll take '03 any day.

Chris '03

BearLover
It'd be interesting to see what the shot differentials were in Schafer's best years. (Although you'd have to somehow adjust for the fact that we went into the 3rd period with the lead every game.)

Three most recent ECAC titles:

1068-753 in '03 [collegehockeystats.net]

830-1025 in '05

982-956 in 10

Huh? We were outshot by 200 shots in 2005?

EDIT: Other way around.

Nm

Chris '03
Three most recent ECAC titles:

1068-753 in '03 [collegehockeystats.net]

830-1025 in '05

982-956 in 10

Unfortunately, you reversed '05.

So in Schafer's best years, we were outshooting opponents by a huge amount. For whatever reason, we still found success in '09 and '10 with about an even shot differential. I think we will never be good with a negative shot differential (this year we are -100).

Scersk '97

Chris '03
Three most recent ECAC titles:

1068-753 in '03 [collegehockeystats.net]

830-1025 in '05

982-956 in 10

Unfortunately, you reversed '05 '03

FYP

BearLover
So in Schafer's best years, we were outshooting opponents by a huge amount. For whatever reason, we still found success in '09 and '10 with about an even shot differential. I think we will never be good with a negative shot differential (this year we are -100).

So I generally agree with this. However if we beat Q, I'd consider this year a success, wouldn't you?

And looking to the future, out of our top 10 shooters there is only 1 senior (position 5) and 2 freshmen (positions 2 & 8). Out of our top 10 scorers 2 seniors (in positions 5 & 8) and 3 freshmen (positions 1, 3, & 9)

If we continue to build upon what our freshmen have done, I think the future will be brighter.

Jim Hyla
If we continue to build upon what our freshmen have done, I think the future will be brighter.

And if not, there is always this thread. That or saying, "There's always lacrosse season."

Jim Hyla
However if we beat Q, I'd consider this year a success, wouldn't you?

Holy shit yes. Not only would that get us 3 wins against #1s and a trip to Placid, it might also punch our ticket to the NC$$.

Jim Hyla

BearLover
So in Schafer's best years, we were outshooting opponents by a huge amount. For whatever reason, we still found success in '09 and '10 with about an even shot differential. I think we will never be good with a negative shot differential (this year we are -100).

So I generally agree with this. However if we beat Q, I'd consider this year a success, wouldn't you?

And looking to the future, out of our top 10 shooters there is only 1 senior (position 5) and 2 freshmen (positions 2 & 8). Out of our top 10 scorers 2 seniors (in positions 5 & 8) and 3 freshmen (positions 1, 3, & 9)

If we continue to build upon what our freshmen have done, I think the future will be brighter.

I agree with all of this. It shouldn't be understated how big of a long-shot beating Q is, though.

BearLover

Jim Hyla

BearLover
So in Schafer's best years, we were outshooting opponents by a huge amount. For whatever reason, we still found success in '09 and '10 with about an even shot differential. I think we will never be good with a negative shot differential (this year we are -100).

So I generally agree with this. However if we beat Q, I'd consider this year a success, wouldn't you?

And looking to the future, out of our top 10 shooters there is only 1 senior (position 5) and 2 freshmen (positions 2 & 8). Out of our top 10 scorers 2 seniors (in positions 5 & 8) and 3 freshmen (positions 1, 3, & 9)

If we continue to build upon what our freshmen have done, I think the future will be brighter.

I agree with all of this. It shouldn't be understated how big of a long-shot beating Q would be, though.

At least we've looked good against them, and good against top teams in general. There's a weird part of me that thinks we're better off against a great team than a very good one (Q instead of Yale, for instance).

And hey, sorry for yelling at you in the post-RPI thread. I had JUST finished watching the game and I should probably take ten minutes to catch my breath before posting.

Also notable is that you take more shots when you're behind. So these good Schafer teams, even those with an even-ish shot differential, had a better shot differential in tied/close games than the numbers indicate.

I'll say what I'd want to see in a new coach. I want a Dave Hakstol style system that aggressively challenges opponents with a forecheck and d-men pinching regularly to create offense. And i want to see a team that is encouraged to carry the puck rather than dump and chase. The best defense is controlling the puck, and I've had enough of the damn 1-2-2 trap. And furthermore I want a coach that can recruit players who ultimately make a difference not only in the college level, but eventually the NHL. They don't have to be draft picks coming into school, but we should have the kind of guys who have the talent that with 3-4 years in school actually make a difference. A lot of people here say thats a ridiculous expectation, but if Union can get a Shayne Gostisbehere or Bemidji State can get a Matt Read, there is no reason that we can't recruit those guys. Ghost wasn't even drafted until after his freshman year. So you can't tell me that he wasn't a guy we could have had.

css228
I'll say what I'd want to see in a new coach. I want a Dave Hakstol style system that aggressively challenges opponents with a forecheck and d-men pinching regularly to create offense. And i want to see a team that is encouraged to carry the puck rather than dump and chase. The best defense is controlling the puck, and I've had enough of the damn 1-2-2 trap. And furthermore I want a coach that can recruit players who ultimately make a difference not only in the college level, but eventually the NHL. They don't have to be draft picks coming into school, but we should have the kind of guys who have the talent that with 3-4 years in school actually make a difference. A lot of people here say thats a ridiculous expectation, but if Union can get a Shayne Gostisbehere or Bemidji State can get a Matt Read, there is no reason that we can't recruit those guys. Ghost wasn't even drafted until after his freshman year. So you can't tell me that he wasn't a guy we could have had.

Well, isn't it possible that Gostisbehere may not have had the academic qualifications to gain admission to Cornell? It's not just a matter of the coaches picking anyone they want.

scoop85
Well, isn't it possible that Gostisbehere may not have had the academic qualifications to gain admission to Cornell? It's not just a matter of the coaches picking anyone they want.

The line I heard quoted from the hockey office back in the 80s was, "for every ten leading prospects that NCAA schools look at, you can immediately exclude 9 who have no chance of admission here."

scoop85

css228
I'll say what I'd want to see in a new coach. I want a Dave Hakstol style system that aggressively challenges opponents with a forecheck and d-men pinching regularly to create offense. And i want to see a team that is encouraged to carry the puck rather than dump and chase. The best defense is controlling the puck, and I've had enough of the damn 1-2-2 trap. And furthermore I want a coach that can recruit players who ultimately make a difference not only in the college level, but eventually the NHL. They don't have to be draft picks coming into school, but we should have the kind of guys who have the talent that with 3-4 years in school actually make a difference. A lot of people here say thats a ridiculous expectation, but if Union can get a Shayne Gostisbehere or Bemidji State can get a Matt Read, there is no reason that we can't recruit those guys. Ghost wasn't even drafted until after his freshman year. So you can't tell me that he wasn't a guy we could have had.

Well, isn't it possible that Gostisbehere may not have had the academic qualifications to gain admission to Cornell? It's not just a matter of the coaches picking anyone they want.

He had a 3.93 at Union. So doubtful.

Schafer probably keeps his job with the win tonight. That said, our AD fired our amazing lax coach due to a hazing incident he had absolutely no liability for (and we've sucked ever since, while he went on to win a championship). We'd have to do super super bad to fire schafer (no matter how much I'd like to). Or I guess get caught for hazing lol.

I don't know why DeLuca was fired but it was NOT because of the "hazing incident."

css228

scoop85

css228
I'll say what I'd want to see in a new coach. I want a Dave Hakstol style system that aggressively challenges opponents with a forecheck and d-men pinching regularly to create offense. And i want to see a team that is encouraged to carry the puck rather than dump and chase. The best defense is controlling the puck, and I've had enough of the damn 1-2-2 trap. And furthermore I want a coach that can recruit players who ultimately make a difference not only in the college level, but eventually the NHL. They don't have to be draft picks coming into school, but we should have the kind of guys who have the talent that with 3-4 years in school actually make a difference. A lot of people here say thats a ridiculous expectation, but if Union can get a Shayne Gostisbehere or Bemidji State can get a Matt Read, there is no reason that we can't recruit those guys. Ghost wasn't even drafted until after his freshman year. So you can't tell me that he wasn't a guy we could have had.

Well, isn't it possible that Gostisbehere may not have had the academic qualifications to gain admission to Cornell? It's not just a matter of the coaches picking anyone they want.

He had a 3.93 at Union. So doubtful.

There were 50+ other schools that didn't find the Ghost, too. Leaman or whoever found him was the key. That person saw potential that tens of recruiters missed. How the hell do you bottle that? The same recruiter, Leaman or Bennett or whoever, might be exceptional in that regard but maybe just lucky too.

Either way, so what? We have to get more Angelos, Vanderlaans etc. but that is exactly who all the teams are trying to recruit. What exactly is the magic formula that you think Cornell is so foolishly overlooking?

Aside from hiring Leaman away from what he likely sees as his dream job, what is your solution? Ten + years ago after Eaves and Umile beat us did you want to change dance partners? How are things at Wisconsin and UNH? Hell, how are things at Union?

In the spirit of the season I cry, "Spring ahead", don't "fall back"!

marty
There were 50+ other schools that didn't find the Ghost, too. Leaman or whoever found him was the key. That person saw potential that tens of recruiters missed. How the hell do you bottle that? The same recruiter, Leaman or Bennett or whoever, might be exceptional in that regard but maybe just lucky too.

You can't use one player to say whether recruiting is good or bad. Finding one diamond in the rough is probably a matter of luck. It's the pattern of players over a period of years that matters.

css228
I'll say what I'd want to see in a new coach. I want a Dave Hakstol style system that aggressively challenges opponents with a forecheck and d-men pinching regularly to create offense. And i want to see a team that is encouraged to carry the puck rather than dump and chase. The best defense is controlling the puck, and I've had enough of the damn 1-2-2 trap. .........

Agreed.... But, suggesting here that Schafer should go is a bit like pissing into the wind.... These folks are fiercely loyal to Schafer, these days. I suspect he's going to need to have a winless season for that to change.

But, good luck with it!!

marty

css228

scoop85

css228
I'll say what I'd want to see in a new coach. I want a Dave Hakstol style system that aggressively challenges opponents with a forecheck and d-men pinching regularly to create offense. And i want to see a team that is encouraged to carry the puck rather than dump and chase. The best defense is controlling the puck, and I've had enough of the damn 1-2-2 trap. And furthermore I want a coach that can recruit players who ultimately make a difference not only in the college level, but eventually the NHL. They don't have to be draft picks coming into school, but we should have the kind of guys who have the talent that with 3-4 years in school actually make a difference. A lot of people here say thats a ridiculous expectation, but if Union can get a Shayne Gostisbehere or Bemidji State can get a Matt Read, there is no reason that we can't recruit those guys. Ghost wasn't even drafted until after his freshman year. So you can't tell me that he wasn't a guy we could have had.

Well, isn't it possible that Gostisbehere may not have had the academic qualifications to gain admission to Cornell? It's not just a matter of the coaches picking anyone they want.

He had a 3.93 at Union. So doubtful.

There were 50+ other schools that didn't find the Ghost, too. Leaman or whoever found him was the key. That person saw potential that tens of recruiters missed. How the hell do you bottle that? The same recruiter, Leaman or Bennett or whoever, might be exceptional in that regard but maybe just lucky too.

Either way, so what? We have to get more Angelos, Vanderlaans etc. but that is exactly who all the teams are trying to recruit. What exactly is the magic formula that you think Cornell is so foolishly overlooking?

Aside from hiring Leaman away from what he likely sees as his dream job, what is your solution? Ten + years ago after Eaves and Umile beat us did you want to change dance partners? How are things at Wisconsin and UNH? Hell, how are things at Union?

In the spirit of the season I cry, "Spring ahead", don't "fall back"!

Yeah but when the last time we've recruited a blue liner that is even remotely like Ghost in style of play. We don't because it doesn't fit Schafer's system. And any system that can't adapt to the strengths of supremely talented players is not a system worth having. Schafer benches players for making mistakes instead of rewarding calculated risks. How is that a coach that you want to keep around? I'm not saying there's any one specific player he should have had, I'm saying the program consistently overlooks players like Ghost because of an infatuation with size. How about we try to bring in a scorer or two who may not be getting recruited everywhere because other teams are concerned about their size?

Also everyone is so high on Angello and Vanderlaan but those two are shooting at an unreal percentage this year. When Angello and Vanderlaan don't shoot at 16.7% and 14.3% respectively next year, everyone's going to wonder what happened when they should really just apply Occam's razor and realize that their true talent probably wasn't that high in the first place. I could see maybe Vanderlaan maintaining something in that range, but for the record, even an all time great goalscorer like Ovi only shoots at 12.3% year on year. You have to look at all time great snipers like Stamkos and Hull to see people with shooting percentages in the Angello range.

We keep wondering why this team is mediocre year after year, and the answer is really simple. Good teams have more of the puck. When your system is predicated on trying to withstand pressure and turtling the moment you get a 1-0 lead in the 1st you are greatly increasing the chances that something gets thrown on your net, bounces off a leg and goes in. I want a coach that understands that. Look at the ECAC standings and compare them to the advanced stats lists. All of the teams in the top half of the league are positive possession teams.

I've wanted Schafer to go since after my junior year in 2013. Maybe you're blinded by past success, but the game has changed. Since I stepped onto campus in the fall of 2010, we've made the postseason once. And we're not going to make it again this year, barring a miracle. In my time on campus, we beat Harvard at home once. I watched every weekend as teams not only out-skated us, but beat us on the boards our big tough guys were supposed to dominate. I watched teams with the stick discipline of Danny Briere. A half a decade is a long time to be mediocre.

And that's not even the worst part. We're not just mediocre, we play boring hockey. A good game for us has 50-60 shot events total (including missed shots). You play low event hockey because you think that gives you the best chance of winning. When you don't win all you've accomplished is to put half the crowd to sleep. People here ask all the time why students don't show up the way they once did. I can give you a simple answer as a recent student. We put an expensive boring product on the ice, and it doesn't win. If it won, I"m sure students would flock to the games. But I'm also betting that even if we were equally mediocre, if games were more often 4-3 and 5-4 more students would come, because it'd be more entertaining. Nobody, but the hardcore of hardcore hockey fans wants to spend $200+ a year to go to games where the most entertaining thing is what the student section is doing. At the very least lower the damn price, because we're not putting a $200+ dollar product out there.

css228
Also everyone is so high on Angello and Vanderlaan but those two are shooting at an unreal percentage this year. When Angello and Vanderlaan don't shoot at 16.7% and 14.3% respectively next year, everyone's going to wonder what happened when they should really just apply Occam's razor and realize that their true talent probably wasn't that high in the first place. I could see maybe Vanderlaan maintaining something in that range, but for the record, even an all time great goalscorer like Ovi only shoots at 12.3% year on year. You have to look at all time great snipers like Stamkos and Hull to see people with shooting percentages in the Angello range.

Or Joe Devin. Seriously, go back and take a look: 19.2% over his college career. Who knew? I certainly wasn't paying attention. Somewhere around 14% is pretty typical of a "good" college player, viz., Greening, Colin and Scott, Topher.

College ain't the Pros. The level of "sniper" and the level of "wall" you're dealing with here are of a different order. (Sidebar: Garteig? The key is clearly to throw a lot of shots at him. Amazing how we were able to change our strategy in order to do that last night.)

So, to poke a hole in this part of your argument, those percentages aren't "unreal." Why anyone would discount the obvious talent of two of the most promising freshmen we've had in a while is a bit beyond me.

And the rest of your argument shows a similar lack of historical perspective, which isn't surprising coming from someone who "stepped onto campus in the fall of 2010." I'm sure those who graduated in 2009 felt much the same.

css228
Yeah but when the last time we've recruited a blue liner that is even remotely like Ghost in style of play.

Joakim Ryan? Point stands, though.

Scersk '97
And the rest of your argument shows a similar lack of historical perspective, which isn't surprising coming from someone who "stepped onto campus in the fall of 2010." I'm sure those who graduated in 2009 felt much the same.

I don't think this is true. Cornell Hockey is clearly at its lowest point since 2001. In 2002, we turned it around and became a dominant force.

Scersk '97

css228
Also everyone is so high on Angello and Vanderlaan but those two are shooting at an unreal percentage this year. When Angello and Vanderlaan don't shoot at 16.7% and 14.3% respectively next year, everyone's going to wonder what happened when they should really just apply Occam's razor and realize that their true talent probably wasn't that high in the first place. I could see maybe Vanderlaan maintaining something in that range, but for the record, even an all time great goalscorer like Ovi only shoots at 12.3% year on year. You have to look at all time great snipers like Stamkos and Hull to see people with shooting percentages in the Angello range.

And the rest of your argument shows a similar lack of historical perspective, which isn't surprising coming from someone who "stepped onto campus in the fall of 2010."

What have you done for me lately? 6 seasons is a hell of a long time to be bad.

BearLover
I don't think this is true. Cornell Hockey is clearly at its lowest point since 2001. In 2002, we turned it around and became a dominant force.

There are low points (1999; not 2001, when we made a surprising run to a championship matchup with SLU), low points (2015), and low points (1993).

That's historical perspective.

css228

Scersk '97

css228
Also everyone is so high on Angello and Vanderlaan but those two are shooting at an unreal percentage this year. When Angello and Vanderlaan don't shoot at 16.7% and 14.3% respectively next year, everyone's going to wonder what happened when they should really just apply Occam's razor and realize that their true talent probably wasn't that high in the first place. I could see maybe Vanderlaan maintaining something in that range, but for the record, even an all time great goalscorer like Ovi only shoots at 12.3% year on year. You have to look at all time great snipers like Stamkos and Hull to see people with shooting percentages in the Angello range.

And the rest of your argument shows a similar lack of historical perspective, which isn't surprising coming from someone who "stepped onto campus in the fall of 2010."

What have you done for me lately? 6 seasons is a hell of a long time to be bad.

We've had a number of disappointing years lately, but only one bad one (last year, when we went 11-14-6). In 2012-2013, we went 15-16-3, which is bad depending on your definition of bad.

In 2013-2014, we went 17-10-5 and barely missed the NCAAs. A disappointment compared to where I'd like us to be, but that's still certainly a good year.

Scersk '97

BearLover
I don't think this is true. Cornell Hockey is clearly at its lowest point since 2001. In 2002, we turned it around and became a dominant force.

There are low points (1999; not 2001, when we made a surprising run to a championship matchup with SLU), low points (2015), and low points (1993).

That's historical perspective.

Lets just do a tracking over the last decade.
2007: Missed NCAAs
2008: Missed NCAAs
2009: Made NCAAs
2010: Made NCAAs
2011: Missed NCAAs
2012: Made NCAAs
2013: Missed NCAAs
2014: Missed NCAAs
2015: Missed NCAAs
2016: Likely to miss NCAAs.
40 % success rate at best, only making one in the last half decade.
As I said. What have you done for me lately?

Dafatone

css228

Scersk '97

css228
Also everyone is so high on Angello and Vanderlaan but those two are shooting at an unreal percentage this year. When Angello and Vanderlaan don't shoot at 16.7% and 14.3% respectively next year, everyone's going to wonder what happened when they should really just apply Occam's razor and realize that their true talent probably wasn't that high in the first place. I could see maybe Vanderlaan maintaining something in that range, but for the record, even an all time great goalscorer like Ovi only shoots at 12.3% year on year. You have to look at all time great snipers like Stamkos and Hull to see people with shooting percentages in the Angello range.

And the rest of your argument shows a similar lack of historical perspective, which isn't surprising coming from someone who "stepped onto campus in the fall of 2010."

What have you done for me lately? 6 seasons is a hell of a long time to be bad.

We've had a number of disappointing years lately, but only one bad one (last year, when we went 11-14-6). In 2012-2013, we went 15-16-3, which is bad depending on your definition of bad.

In 2013-2014, we went 17-10-5 and barely missed the NCAAs. A disappointment compared to where I'd like us to be, but that's still certainly a good year.

No we missed NCAAs because we left it during the regular season to the point where we had no route but to win the tournament to get it. That is not a good season.

css228
What have you done for me lately? 6 seasons is a hell of a long time to be bad.

Your perspective is out of whack. In the previous five seasons, we've had one runner-up and made two other semi appearances, which isn't "bad." There are at least seven other ECAC schools that would love to have done half as well.

This season is still ongoing, if you hadn't noticed.

For "bad," see Clarkson or RPI, once proud programs that have fallen on really tough times. Clarkson hasn't made the semis since 2007, and RPI (2002) is "on the clock."

Look, I'm not going to look this stuff up for you anymore. If you can't come back with a real sense of perspective, there's no sense in continuing this.

Scersk '97

BearLover
I don't think this is true. Cornell Hockey is clearly at its lowest point since 2001. In 2002, we turned it around and became a dominant force.

There are low points (1999; not 2001, when we made a surprising run to a championship matchup with SLU), low points (2015), and low points (1993).

That's historical perspective.

That's probably true, but this is by far the longest we've gone (four years) without making the NCAAs since 2001 (assuming we don't make it this year). These will be the only seniors in Schafer's tenure, aside from the Class of 2001, to graduate without setting foot in the NCAAs.

Scersk '97

css228
What have you done for me lately? 6 seasons is a hell of a long time to be bad.

Your perspective is out of whack. In the previous five seasons, we've had one runner-up and made two other semi appearances, which isn't "bad." There are at least seven other ECAC schools that would love to have done half as well.

This season is still ongoing, if you hadn't noticed.

For "bad," see Clarkson or RPI, once proud programs that have fallen on really tough times. Clarkson hasn't made the semis since 2007, and RPI (2002) is "on the clock."

Look, I'm not going to look this stuff up for you anymore. If you can't come back with a real sense of perspective, there's no sense in continuing this.

We are not Clarkson or RPI. The expectations here are higher. I'm sorry I'm not satisfied with mediocrity.

css228
......I watched every weekend as teams not only out-skated us, but beat us on the boards our big tough guys were supposed to dominate.....

To single out this one snippet, this is one of the complaints I have with Schafer. He is continuing to bring big players into a conference whose officials will not allow them to "play big" as was done back in the era of Murray/Bâby.... Thus, it is hard for those players to be successful... Furthermore, those big players' hands are tied in offering protection to their teammates, again as Murray used to do in early 2000's. For those who watched those highly successful teams of the early 2000's, the threat of Murray kept a lot of opposition players honest and help ALL of our players be more successful, especially along the boards. Rough up a CU player and feel the wrath of Doug Murray!!! Believe me, they knew it, whether he was on the ice or watching from the bench!!!! We now have nobody like that.... Because they don't dare...

Schafer knows this because he complains about the officiating... But, he does nothing to change his recruiting.

css228

Scersk '97

css228
Also everyone is so high on Angello and Vanderlaan but those two are shooting at an unreal percentage this year. When Angello and Vanderlaan don't shoot at 16.7% and 14.3% respectively next year, everyone's going to wonder what happened when they should really just apply Occam's razor and realize that their true talent probably wasn't that high in the first place. I could see maybe Vanderlaan maintaining something in that range, but for the record, even an all time great goalscorer like Ovi only shoots at 12.3% year on year. You have to look at all time great snipers like Stamkos and Hull to see people with shooting percentages in the Angello range.

And the rest of your argument shows a similar lack of historical perspective, which isn't surprising coming from someone who "stepped onto campus in the fall of 2010."

What have you done for me lately? 6 seasons is a hell of a long time to be bad.

You do realize that "what have you done for me lately?" is an expression generally used to point out unrealistic, conceited demands that demonstrate a lack of perspective from the third party to whom that inquiry is ascribed, don't you?

The fact that you're asking it in the first person speaks volumes about your lack of perspective on your lack of perspective.

Go back in time, graduate in '94 (as I did) and still be a fan 22 years later and then we can have a conversation.

Robb

css228

Scersk '97

css228
Also everyone is so high on Angello and Vanderlaan but those two are shooting at an unreal percentage this year. When Angello and Vanderlaan don't shoot at 16.7% and 14.3% respectively next year, everyone's going to wonder what happened when they should really just apply Occam's razor and realize that their true talent probably wasn't that high in the first place. I could see maybe Vanderlaan maintaining something in that range, but for the record, even an all time great goalscorer like Ovi only shoots at 12.3% year on year. You have to look at all time great snipers like Stamkos and Hull to see people with shooting percentages in the Angello range.

And the rest of your argument shows a similar lack of historical perspective, which isn't surprising coming from someone who "stepped onto campus in the fall of 2010."

What have you done for me lately? 6 seasons is a hell of a long time to be bad.

You do realize that "what have you done for me lately?" is an expression generally used to point out unrealistic, conceited demands that demonstrate a lack of perspective from the third party to whom that inquiry is ascribed, don't you?

The fact that you're asking it in the first person speaks volumes about your lack of perspective on your lack of perspective.

Go back in time, graduate in '94 (as I did) and still be a fan 22 years later and then we can have a conversation.

I do. I've seen the Eddie Murphy routine. But in this case I will disagree that those expectations are unrealistic and conceited. I paid over $800 in season tickets alone to watch this team for four years. I didn't keep track of what I spent for away games, and for travel to those, but it was well over $1000 dollars. It was an investment in entertainment. If the team keeps this being this quality, than I do not blame any student for deciding this investment is not worthwhile. It seems to me the argument for keeping Schafer is "well it could be worse". Fear of failure is not a justification to do nothing. If you want to see Section B empty out, just keep doing what is going on. The students aren't dumb. They know they have better investments of their time and money. If I were still a student I could not justify investing money into this hockey team.

css228

Dafatone

css228

Scersk '97

css228
Also everyone is so high on Angello and Vanderlaan but those two are shooting at an unreal percentage this year. When Angello and Vanderlaan don't shoot at 16.7% and 14.3% respectively next year, everyone's going to wonder what happened when they should really just apply Occam's razor and realize that their true talent probably wasn't that high in the first place. I could see maybe Vanderlaan maintaining something in that range, but for the record, even an all time great goalscorer like Ovi only shoots at 12.3% year on year. You have to look at all time great snipers like Stamkos and Hull to see people with shooting percentages in the Angello range.

And the rest of your argument shows a similar lack of historical perspective, which isn't surprising coming from someone who "stepped onto campus in the fall of 2010."

What have you done for me lately? 6 seasons is a hell of a long time to be bad.

We've had a number of disappointing years lately, but only one bad one (last year, when we went 11-14-6). In 2012-2013, we went 15-16-3, which is bad depending on your definition of bad.

In 2013-2014, we went 17-10-5 and barely missed the NCAAs. A disappointment compared to where I'd like us to be, but that's still certainly a good year.

No we missed NCAAs because we left it during the regular season to the point where we had no route but to win the tournament to get it. That is not a good season.

I gotta be honest. I don't really know what you're saying beyond "we didn't make it because we didn't make it."

css228

Robb

css228

Scersk '97

css228
Also everyone is so high on Angello and Vanderlaan but those two are shooting at an unreal percentage this year. When Angello and Vanderlaan don't shoot at 16.7% and 14.3% respectively next year, everyone's going to wonder what happened when they should really just apply Occam's razor and realize that their true talent probably wasn't that high in the first place. I could see maybe Vanderlaan maintaining something in that range, but for the record, even an all time great goalscorer like Ovi only shoots at 12.3% year on year. You have to look at all time great snipers like Stamkos and Hull to see people with shooting percentages in the Angello range.

And the rest of your argument shows a similar lack of historical perspective, which isn't surprising coming from someone who "stepped onto campus in the fall of 2010."

What have you done for me lately? 6 seasons is a hell of a long time to be bad.

You do realize that "what have you done for me lately?" is an expression generally used to point out unrealistic, conceited demands that demonstrate a lack of perspective from the third party to whom that inquiry is ascribed, don't you?

The fact that you're asking it in the first person speaks volumes about your lack of perspective on your lack of perspective.

Go back in time, graduate in '94 (as I did) and still be a fan 22 years later and then we can have a conversation.

I do. I've seen the Eddie Murphy routine. But in this case I will disagree that those expectations are unrealistic and conceited. I paid over $800 in season tickets alone to watch this team for four years. I didn't keep track of what I spent for away games, and for travel to those, but it was well over $1000 dollars. It was an investment in entertainment. If the team keeps this being this quality, than I do not blame any student for deciding this investment is not worthwhile. It seems to me the argument for keeping Schafer is "well it could be worse". Fear of failure is not a justification to do nothing. If you want to see Section B empty out, just keep doing what is going on. The students aren't dumb. They know they have better investments of their time and money. If I were still a student I could not justify investing money into this hockey team.

Too funny. All about what you spent and whether you were entertained - and how it's not conceit.

I'd give Schafer one more year, but the notion that he should stick around because it could be worse is absurd. We know national championships are attainable (see Yale, Union, Q). Cornell had the best tradition in the ECAC. In college sports, success (or failure) snowballs. Successful seasons lead to successful recruiting classes, which lead to more successful seasons, etc. A mediocre season now means more mediocrity in the future. So by accepting temporary mediocrity simply because we're better than Clarkson and RPI (who cares about them, seriously?) is accepting that we follow in their footsteps of prolonged mediocrity.

Dafatone

css228

Dafatone

css228

Scersk '97

css228
Also everyone is so high on Angello and Vanderlaan but those two are shooting at an unreal percentage this year. When Angello and Vanderlaan don't shoot at 16.7% and 14.3% respectively next year, everyone's going to wonder what happened when they should really just apply Occam's razor and realize that their true talent probably wasn't that high in the first place. I could see maybe Vanderlaan maintaining something in that range, but for the record, even an all time great goalscorer like Ovi only shoots at 12.3% year on year. You have to look at all time great snipers like Stamkos and Hull to see people with shooting percentages in the Angello range.

And the rest of your argument shows a similar lack of historical perspective, which isn't surprising coming from someone who "stepped onto campus in the fall of 2010."

What have you done for me lately? 6 seasons is a hell of a long time to be bad.

We've had a number of disappointing years lately, but only one bad one (last year, when we went 11-14-6). In 2012-2013, we went 15-16-3, which is bad depending on your definition of bad.

In 2013-2014, we went 17-10-5 and barely missed the NCAAs. A disappointment compared to where I'd like us to be, but that's still certainly a good year.

No we missed NCAAs because we left it during the regular season to the point where we had no route but to win the tournament to get it. That is not a good season.

I gotta be honest. I don't really know what you're saying beyond "we didn't make it because we didn't make it."

What I'm saying is good teams don't leave the tournament to be their only route in. Good teams may still occasionally miss because of unexpected conference champs but, my opinion is if you're not in a position to get an at large bid, you didn't have a good season.

Robb
Too funny. All about what you spent and whether you were entertained - and how it's not conceit.

How is treating entertainment as an investment an illegitimate perspective. I seriously considered dropping my season tickets senior year. As Cowbell Guy. I love hockey. I can talk about it all day. A lot of my best friendships are based around hockey. The vast majority of fans my age, especially the hardcore ones want Schafer gone. Many of them feel exactly how I do. Maybe in the early 90s season tickets were a lot cheaper. You start putting a price of $200+ a year on the tickets then yes, the expectations get higher. And to act as if someone saying as much is blasphemy reveals just as much about how far disconnected you are from student reality as my statements reveal about my level of "conceit".

BearLover
I'd give Schafer one more year, but the notion that he should stick around because it could be worse is absurd. We know national championships are attainable (see Yale, Union, Q). Cornell had the best tradition in the ECAC. In college sports, success (or failure) snowballs. Successful seasons lead to successful recruiting classes, which lead to more successful seasons, etc. A mediocre season now means more mediocrity in the future. So by accepting temporary mediocrity simply because we're better than Clarkson and RPI (who cares about them, seriously?) is accepting that we follow in their footsteps of prolonged mediocrity.

For me, it comes down to the direction we're going. After last year, I was willing to say that we give Schafer at least one more year, but it's kind of an ultimatum year. This year's been good enough to sell me that we're turning things around, even though we clearly have a long ways to go.

Lots of consistency issues this season, but that's what happens when you have so many freshmen doing the heavy lifting.

Robb

css228

Robb

css228

Scersk '97

css228
Also everyone is so high on Angello and Vanderlaan but those two are shooting at an unreal percentage this year. When Angello and Vanderlaan don't shoot at 16.7% and 14.3% respectively next year, everyone's going to wonder what happened when they should really just apply Occam's razor and realize that their true talent probably wasn't that high in the first place. I could see maybe Vanderlaan maintaining something in that range, but for the record, even an all time great goalscorer like Ovi only shoots at 12.3% year on year. You have to look at all time great snipers like Stamkos and Hull to see people with shooting percentages in the Angello range.

And the rest of your argument shows a similar lack of historical perspective, which isn't surprising coming from someone who "stepped onto campus in the fall of 2010."

What have you done for me lately? 6 seasons is a hell of a long time to be bad.

You do realize that "what have you done for me lately?" is an expression generally used to point out unrealistic, conceited demands that demonstrate a lack of perspective from the third party to whom that inquiry is ascribed, don't you?

The fact that you're asking it in the first person speaks volumes about your lack of perspective on your lack of perspective.

Go back in time, graduate in '94 (as I did) and still be a fan 22 years later and then we can have a conversation.

I do. I've seen the Eddie Murphy routine. But in this case I will disagree that those expectations are unrealistic and conceited. I paid over $800 in season tickets alone to watch this team for four years. I didn't keep track of what I spent for away games, and for travel to those, but it was well over $1000 dollars. It was an investment in entertainment. If the team keeps this being this quality, than I do not blame any student for deciding this investment is not worthwhile. It seems to me the argument for keeping Schafer is "well it could be worse". Fear of failure is not a justification to do nothing. If you want to see Section B empty out, just keep doing what is going on. The students aren't dumb. They know they have better investments of their time and money. If I were still a student I could not justify investing money into this hockey team.

Too funny. All about what you spent and whether you were entertained - and how it's not conceit.

Css is a millenial, what else you expect? Pretty much nails all the stereotypes. Self_centered, its my opinion and therfore it's a fact, etc.

Css, your whiny demand for 50% or more ncaa appearances is absurd. They don't give everyone a trophy for participation in the real world.

css228
How is treating entertainment as an investment an illegitimate perspective.

I think you're lost. Objectivist meeting is next door. MRA is down the hall.

Don't think Mike is going anywhere, but who can have any confidence in Andy's selection of a replacement. Look for example at football (Archer is 5-25) and basketball (Courtney is 27-57 in Ivies).

Trotsky

css228
How is treating entertainment as an investment an illegitimate perspective.

I think you're lost. Objectivist meeting is next door. MRA is down the hall.

Thanks for the ad hominem. I'm a proud feminist and my political views have nothing to do with the validity of my argument. Regardless of whether or not you like the conclusion that I come to.

abmarks
Css, your whiny demand for 50% or more ncaa appearances is absurd. They don't give everyone a trophy for participation in the real world.

I've said multiple times on this thread that I'd settle for even a more entertaining brand of hockey at the same record. It is not entitled to believe that if something is not working, you should try something else. In fact a great president once said "It is common sense to take a method and try it: If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something." If daring to dream of something better is to be entitled than I will gladly take that label. Could replacing Schafer go badly and could we end up with a worse product? Absolutely. But show me a man who is afraid to fail, and I'll show you a failure.

And I have in the past backed up my opinions with facts on how puck possession leads to winning. I have made that argument countless times, with statistics to back it. I understand that some remain unconvinced, because I only have the data to demonstrate the merits of possession strength and dominant neutral zone play at the professional level. My contention is that its still hockey. The same basic strategies should work.

Now I understand I've roiled everyone's sensitivities but let me just put it to you this way. If you were talking to a 47 year old Maple Leafs fan, and you told them you should be grateful for all of those titles your team won, does that make any sense? Why should those matter to him? He wasn't alive in 1967. He wasn't there for it. The past glory of Cornell Hockey is just that to me. Past. At the end of the day, the banners hanging in the rafters are cool, but they're not much more than that. Just like the 74 and 75 Stanley Cups don't mean much to me as a Flyers fan in my 20s. You know why I adore the Flyers way more than Cornell Hockey will ever matter to me? Because the Flyers try something.They may try and fail, but at least they try something different. They've done some stupid shit over the years (Signing Vinny and trading JvR for Luke Schenn come to mind recently) but they don't take my support as a fan for granted. Cornell does. And that matters. A lot.

I think it's valid to be concerned about missing the NCAAs for four straight years and note that maybe it's time to make a change if things don't turn around soon.

But a 40% NCAA appearance rate is great. Someone much less lazy than I should see how many teams have done better than that in the past 10 years.

css228

Yeah but when the last time we've recruited a blue liner that is even remotely like Ghost in style of play. We don't because it doesn't fit Schafer's system.

2016? I don't know about style of play, but 63 points in a 58-game season ain't exactly chopped liver.

Dafatone
I think it's valid to be concerned about missing the NCAAs for four straight years and note that maybe it's time to make a change if things don't turn around soon.

But a 40% NCAA appearance rate is great. Someone much less lazy than I should see how many teams have done better than that in the past 10 years.

I'm not satisfied with 40%, nor do I think Schafer's entire history is more indicative of our future success than is his recent history. That is to say, that number is going to get much lower than 40%.

BearLover

Dafatone
I think it's valid to be concerned about missing the NCAAs for four straight years and note that maybe it's time to make a change if things don't turn around soon.

But a 40% NCAA appearance rate is great. Someone much less lazy than I should see how many teams have done better than that in the past 10 years.

I'm not satisfied with 40%, nor do I think Schafer's entire history is more indicative of our future success than is his recent history. That is to say, that number is going to get much lower than 40%.

Given the last few years, worrying that we're gonna do worse than that makes sense. But I think 40% is a fine rate. There isn't any inherent reason for us to be good, and I feel like a bunch of people here kind of assume that our baseline is very high just because we're Cornell.

I hate to say it, but we're not that special, especially since Lynah's getting a little less exciting (which had started in the mid to late 00s, before we started downturning).

Dafatone

BearLover

Dafatone
I think it's valid to be concerned about missing the NCAAs for four straight years and note that maybe it's time to make a change if things don't turn around soon.

But a 40% NCAA appearance rate is great. Someone much less lazy than I should see how many teams have done better than that in the past 10 years.

I'm not satisfied with 40%, nor do I think Schafer's entire history is more indicative of our future success than is his recent history. That is to say, that number is going to get much lower than 40%.

Given the last few years, worrying that we're gonna do worse than that makes sense. But I think 40% is a fine rate. There isn't any inherent reason for us to be good, and I feel like a bunch of people here kind of assume that our baseline is very high just because we're Cornell.

I hate to say it, but we're not that special, especially since Lynah's getting a little less exciting (which had started in the mid to late 00s, before we started downturning).

We were special, though. We have two national championships, the only undefeated season in college hockey history, two of the best players ever, the best fans in college hockey (perhaps no longer true), and had an awesome run of success. Whether that run of success was flukish or not doesn't really matter--we had it, so we could have built off of it. Schafer said in the mid-2000s that he expected to a compete for a national title every season. I think many of us expected that too. Sure, we -could- be an average college hockey team, but if that had always been the case, 90% of us wouldn't be here right now, obsessing over Cornell Hockey. If we're no longer awesome, many of us will stop caring, at least a little. It's already started happening. So I'm not content not being awesome. If we're perpetually mediocre, I'll find some other hobbies to fill this time.

BearLover
So I'm not content not being awesome. If we're perpetually mediocre, I'll find some other hobbies to fill this time.

I think this gets to the heart of some of the disagreement here. For me, and I think some of the folks here, being a fan means supporting the team through hell and high water. Now that doesn't mean I won't let my team know it when they're playing like crap (I am a New Yorker) but I won't stop being a fan.

This perspective conflicts with the one that you and css228 are describing where you'll go do something else if the team is sufficiently successful. You certainly have a right to do so and it's a valid position to take. But it certainly is a conflicting view.

Here's the thing. I get lots of enjoyment out of following Cornell hockey even when we have been bad or, like this year, not as good as we would like. That makes it a lot easier to not get too bent out of shape when things aren't ideal.

KeithK

BearLover
So I'm not content not being awesome. If we're perpetually mediocre, I'll find some other hobbies to fill this time.

I think this gets to the heart of some of the disagreement here. For me, and I think some of the folks here, being a fan means supporting the team through hell and high water. Now that doesn't mean I won't let my team know it when they're playing like crap (I am a New Yorker) but I won't stop being a fan.

This perspective conflicts with the one that you and css228 are describing where you'll go do something else if the team is sufficiently successful. You certainly have a right to do so and it's a valid position to take. But it certainly is a conflicting view.

Here's the thing. I get lots of enjoyment out of following Cornell hockey even when we have been bad or, like this year, not as good as we would like. That makes it a lot easier to not get too bent out of shape when things aren't ideal.

That may be true--and I would still follow the team and attend games, even if not nearly to the same extent as if they were good--but my main point was that few of us would be here in the first place, or care this much, if Cornell Hockey didn't have the same degree of success and mystique over its history. Cornell Hockey is--or was--a fundamental part of the Cornell experience. Even the non-season ticket holders knew it was a Big Thing and wanted to attend the Harvard Game. Cornell Hockey didn't get to that point by being .500 every season. Even if you don't particularly care about our record, perhaps you will care when Lynah no longer fills and Big Red fandom dies and when Cornell Hockey ceases to be a piece of the Cornell experience. All of these things have been set in motion already.

KeithK
I think this gets to the heart of some of the disagreement here. For me, and I think some of the folks here, being a fan means supporting the team through hell and high water. Now that doesn't mean I won't let my team know it when they're playing like crap (I am a New Yorker) but I won't stop being a fan.

I almost agree...... I've booed the CU team exactly once... Actually I was booing Brian McCutcheon. That was during an era when our PP was so absolutely awful that I wished that we could decline penalties. On one particular PP, their ineffectiveness was sickening & I booed (McCutcheon's scheme of taking only perfect shots). That's it for my 49 years of watching CU hockey. The rest of the time I am a loyal fan of the team.... But, when a coach needs to go, they need to go.... I don't hold that against the players.

Long gone are the days when you only had to be better than a handful of teams in the ECAC to win the title. You can't expect to glide into Princeton and Union and steamroll them like you used to. There's impressive parity in the ECAC and college hockey as a whole. Dartmouth just swept an on-fire Yale. Remember what a big deal it was when an Atlantic Hockey team beat anyone from another conference? Expecting an NCAA appearance every other year is simply a hallucinogenic pipe dream, particularly for an Ivy League school. Michigan was in the tournament 22 straight years but hasn't been there since 2012. Wisconsin was a perennial power but can't beat a midget team these days. Union won a moonshot NCAA title and has quickly collapsed. Today, getting there is an achievement. Getting there with regularity without scholarships is extremely improbable.

As for recruiting size, obviously Schafer is moving away from that. Should it have happened a few years earlier? I don't think anyone would disagree with that, but at least it's happening now.

CowbellGuy
Expecting an NCAA appearance every other year is simply a hallucinogenic pipe dream, particularly for an Ivy League school.

Notice what Yale's been doing?

Dartmouth just swept an on-fire Yale.

By getting extremely lucky. That happens in hockey. Yale isn't getting punished for their bad luck because they played a great regular season.

This has been a rollercoaster season, but it looks like we're going to finish exactly where we were picked and most of us expected: around (exactly!) .500 and a QF elimination.

I think there are reasons to be hopeful. The style has changed significantly. The lockeroom problems from last year have apparently ended. Our freshman class was considered the best in the conference. The recruit profile is changing from big and tough to smaller and (hopefully) more skilled.

Trotsky
This has been a rollercoaster season, but it looks like we're going to finish exactly where we were picked and most of us expected: around (exactly!) .500 and a QF elimination.

I think there are reasons to be hopeful. The style has changed significantly. The lockeroom problems from last year have apparently ended. Our freshman class was considered the best in the conference. The recruit profile is changing from big and tough to smaller and (hopefully) more skilled.

The "locker room problems" seemed like more of an excuse Schafer invented to throw others under the bus for his own failures in coaching one of the most talented teams he's had. When we were 11-2-2, it sounded great, if implausible, that a group of highly skilled seniors was the only thing holding us back. Now it just sounds implausible.

BearLover

Trotsky
This has been a rollercoaster season, but it looks like we're going to finish exactly where we were picked and most of us expected: around (exactly!) .500 and a QF elimination.

I think there are reasons to be hopeful. The style has changed significantly. The lockeroom problems from last year have apparently ended. Our freshman class was considered the best in the conference. The recruit profile is changing from big and tough to smaller and (hopefully) more skilled.

The "locker room problems" seemed like more of an excuse Schafer invented to throw others under the bus for his own failures in coaching one of the most talented teams he's had. When we were 11-2-2, it sounded great, if implausible, that a group of highly skilled seniors was the only thing holding us back. Now it just sounds implausible.

Besides isn't it the coach's job to handle the locker room issues.

Yeah, I'm sure you know exactly what was going on in the locker room with lat year's team. If you don't believe Schafer maybe you should ask a player.

BearLover

CowbellGuy
Expecting an NCAA appearance every other year is simply a hallucinogenic pipe dream, particularly for an Ivy League school.

Notice what Yale's been doing?

Dartmouth just swept an on-fire Yale.

By getting extremely lucky. That happens in hockey. Yale isn't getting punished for their bad luck because they played a great regular season.

Your last point is exactly on the money here.

BearLover
The "locker room problems" seemed like more of an excuse Schafer invented to throw others under the bus for his own failures in coaching one of the most talented teams he's had. When we were 11-2-2, it sounded great, if implausible, that a group of highly skilled seniors was the only thing holding us back. Now it just sounds implausible.

None of us will ever know, but every player seemed to echo the sentiment that the graduating seniors were a clique who were not overly welcoming to the other players and did not involve them in decisions. Enough of them mentioned it that it seems to have been a problem.

Not saying it wasn't a problem, more that it was in no way a significant one as far as results were concerned. If it is, it's Schafer's job to deal with it. I have a hard time believing Q and the LA Kings give a shit about being a tight-knit group off the ice.

CowbellGuy
Yeah, I'm sure you know exactly what was going on in the locker room with lat year's team. If you don't believe Schafer maybe you should ask a player.

Even if you believe Schafer, isn't that an indictment of his locker room management and his recruiting? He hand picked those players. It's his job to manage the personalities on his team. I think Bear Lover's take on this is the generous one.

You seem to think coaches have some mystical powers here. They're not puppeteers. You can't make players do anything. You can just try to guide and steer them in the right direction. Ultimately, the worst thing a coach can do for a player is take away their ice time, which he certainly does routinely. Beyond that, you're going to have to go find a magic wand. Let me know if you do.

I definitely think a coach is capable of getting through to his players to instruct them on how to act towards each other. Regardless, that wasn't really my point. My point was that
1. I highly doubt locker room chemistry had any significant effect on the team's success
2. It's ridiculous for Schafer to time and time again publicly blame last year's seniors for his own inability to coach

CowbellGuy
You seem to think coaches have some mystical powers here. They're not puppeteers. You can't make players do anything. You can just try to guide and steer them in the right direction. Ultimately, the worst thing a coach can do for a player is take away their ice time, which he certainly does routinely. Beyond that, you're going to have to go find a magic wand. Let me know if you do.

No I'm thinking of a coach no differently than any other manager in any other business environment. Some people know how to play to people's strengths, manage personalities, handle conflicts, and some don't. That's not magic, thats management 101.

CowbellGuy
Long gone are the days when you only had to be better than a handful of teams in the ECAC to win the title. You can't expect to glide into Princeton and Union and steamroll them like you used to. There's impressive parity in the ECAC and college hockey as a whole.

I also disagree with this. In recent years Q and Yale have been just as dominant against everyone else in the ECAC as Cornell was in Schafer's best years. It's still possible, it's just being done by teams that aren't us.

It astounds me that "Faithful" are accepting/defending mediocrity, I'm done......fire him.