Davenport Has Left the Team

[Q]David Harding Wrote:

You also have to remember the timetable on recruiting Davenport. McKee was scheduled to be a freshman this year after spending a year in the Nanaimo Clippers pipeline. It was only in the summer, after Lenny's departure, that he was encouraged to enroll last year. Even for the first months of the season it was not at all clear that he was going to excel as he did, and by that time Davenport had committed. Then McKee took another step up.
[/q]

Very good point.

Some players fear they're not as good as their clippings, that they got lucky over and over. (Richard Burton went to his grave believing he was a fraud as an actor and simply tricked the critics a bunch of times.) There are probably more players who overestimate their ability and it's reinforced by fans, parents, press clippings, and recruiters.

As for the timetable of Davenport arriving, it's a good point that McKee was supposed to be a freshman this year. Still, by the May 1 deadline that Cornell the university has for its students saying yes or no, Davenport had learned of McKee's freshman-year abilities and seen his ECACHL rookie of the year trophy. Maybe Davenport realized it was going to be tougher to beat out (or alternate with) McKee than he'd expected, but Davenport probably thought it was still enough of a horse race to not give up all the plaqns he'd made. True, most other schools had locked in their goaltending needs, but Davenport only needed to have found one, say, ECACHL team in need of help.

One thing I'm not sure I like is the coach's quote from the Journal saying Davenport was selfish in leaving the team. Maybe a generation ago that would have been clear. In a more self-focused era, I'm not sure I agree. I don't think Davenport was more selfish in saying, Oops, wrong place for me, than Leneveu was selfish in furthering his career by turning pro after two of his four years. With Lenny in goal this year, maybe we'd be in the top five, not top ten, and we'd have an incredible backup goalie in freshman David McKee, fresh off his prep year with Nainamo. Too bad the Journal didn't ask Schafer if Davenport would or would not have been selfish if he stayed the year and then left.

All of this is moot if Mckee stays healthy the next 2-1/2 years and we find a dynamite backup in the next 24 months.

[Q]One thing I'm not sure I like is the coach's quote from the Journal saying Davenport was selfish in leaving the team. Maybe a generation ago that would have been clear. In a more self-focused era, I'm not sure I agree.[/Q]

Did you just say that the more selfish people get, the less selfish they are?

The full quote didn't say selfish directly. Schafer was quoted in the Journal as saying ...

[q]"(Davenport) didn't see himself getting in the net, playing behind David," Schafer said. "We are disappointed. I thought he improved a lot as a goaltender. I thought he let the team down by leaving. He is looking out for the best interests for himself down the road.
"When Troy came in, I thought without question he would battle against (McKee) much like David LeNeveu came in and battled against Matt Underhill (LeNeveu and Underhill split time when LeNeveu was a freshman and Underhill was a senior in 2001-02 season). But what happened is David McKee elevated his game and got better. For Troy and (backup goalie Louis Chabot), that doesn't leave much room for those guys to play, especially if you want to be a top-10 team. You can't experiment. I've always said the better player plays." [/q]
.... and my point was that a generation ago people had a different mindset: long hair was not good on athletes, blacks should be grateful for the opportunity to be in college playing sports, it was selfish to turn pro before you played four years as an undergrad (never mind that in football or basketball at least, the only person not making money on college sports was the person who played it). Now I think many people see a more middle ground: Too bad Davenport left the team in mid-year, and in that sense he let down Cornell because it was counting on him to be part of the team ... but Cornell wanted to maximize its utility in having Davenport on the team (albeit on the bench waiting for McKee to pull a groin muscle) at the same time Davenport wanted to maximize his chances of getting ahead. Because Davenport wasn't as good as Cornell/Davenport thought, or because McKee got way better than anyone expected (do *we* think McKee is way better than last year, or is it more of the expected yearly improvement?), he didn't play.

[Q]billhoward Wrote:

...Too bad Davenport left the team in mid-year, and in that sense he let down Cornell because it was counting on him to be part of the team ... [/q]

Based on the conversation in this thread he was absolutely the #2 goalie in the system. Without him, the remainder of Cornell's hockey season is one injury (on or off the ice) away from calamity. IMO, putting your team in that situation, especially 2/3 through the season, is very selfish. I wish him well, but he still deserves a big fat

Of course his leaving the team in mid-season is "selfish" -- the decision was made in his own best interests, not those of the team (leaving a team is rarely an unselfish decision, unless it's a case of "addition by subtraction". The question is, is it inappropriately selfish, or unwarranted? Probably in his mind, the answer is no. Schafer presumably promised him a chance to compete for ice time and Davenport felt he had earned more than he was given. He likely agreed to enroll at Cornell this past fall on the basis that he'd be playing some. When McKee stepped up his game this season and Schafer responded by giving him all of the starts (no matter how well Davenport might have been playing), Davenport no doubt saw that his chance of ever playing in the next three years rested on rooting for McKee to play poorly or get hurt. McKee had clearly become the "favorite" with the coach, so Davenport was going to leave at the end of the season anyway. Why should he sit around the next few months, when he could be playing in games elsewhere? Yes, he had made a commitment to the team for this season, but the coach (in Davenport's mind) had made a commitment to give him ice time.

Inappropriately selfish.

CUlater, the point is he made a commitment to the Team. There are no buts about it. I don't care if his feelings were hurt. He agreed to take on a role on the Team. "Backup" does not mean "unplayed". If McKee has a bad game, he's in. If McKee gets hurt or catches the flu or get's rear-ended on Seneca Ave, Troy's in. His choice to leave now let's everybody down -- Coach, David, Matt, Shane, Topher... you get the point.

Also, if the rationale going through his mind was as you suggest, he's not necessarily someone I would want playing for me...."I'll play on your team as long as you promise I always get to start." Get over yourself! It's an overused cliche, but still true --- there's no "I" in T-E-A-M.

[Q]KenP Wrote:

It's an overused cliche, but still true --- there's no "I" in T-E-A-M.
[/q]

But there is an M-E.

[Q]CUlater 89 Wrote:

Of course his leaving the team in mid-season is "selfish" -- the decision was made in his own best interests, not those of the team (leaving a team is rarely an unselfish decision, unless it's a case of "addition by subtraction". The question is, is it inappropriately selfish, or unwarranted? Probably in his mind, the answer is no. Schafer presumably promised him a chance to compete for ice time and Davenport felt he had earned more than he was given. He likely agreed to enroll at Cornell this past fall on the basis that he'd be playing some. When McKee stepped up his game this season and Schafer responded by giving him all of the starts (no matter how well Davenport might have been playing), Davenport no doubt saw that his chance of ever playing in the next three years rested on rooting for McKee to play poorly or get hurt. McKee had clearly become the "favorite" with the coach, so Davenport was going to leave at the end of the season anyway. Why should he sit around the next few months, when he could be playing in games elsewhere? Yes, he had made a commitment to the team for this season, but the coach (in Davenport's mind) had made a commitment to give him ice time.[/q]
Big leap to go from "presumably promised him a chance to compete" to "made a commitment to give him ice time."

Chabot has been on the bench because he has a problem controlling his rebounds. Until he can improve in that area, and McKee craps the bed, he probably won't see much ice time.

[Q]Al DeFlorio Wrote:

Big leap to go from "presumably promised him a chance to compete" to "made a commitment to give him ice time."[/q]

From what I understand, when Davenport agreed to come in for this season he was told that if he played well he would get to split time with McKee (actually, I had heard that Schafer really wanted Davenport to win the job because based on last season he thought McKee wasn't the long-term answer). Even Schafer admits that Davenport has improved his play. Davenport probably felt like he was playing well enough to start some games and Schafer either disagrees and/or believes McKee gives him the best chance to win games at this point, with his improvement over last season. Thus, Davenport feels like he held up his end of the bargain (improving his play and playing well enough to start) but wasn't going to get that chance.

[Q]KenP Wrote:

Inappropriately selfish.

CUlater, the point is he made a commitment to the Team. There are no buts about it. I don't care if his feelings were hurt. He agreed to take on a role on the Team. "Backup" does not mean "unplayed". If McKee has a bad game, he's in. If McKee gets hurt or catches the flu or get's rear-ended on Seneca Ave, Troy's in. His choice to leave now let's everybody down -- Coach, David, Matt, Shane, Topher... you get the point.

Also, if the rationale going through his mind was as you suggest, he's not necessarily someone I would want playing for me...."I'll play on your team as long as you promise I always get to start." Get over yourself! It's an overused cliche, but still true --- there's no "I" in T-E-A-M.
[/q]

"Backup" does mean "unplayed", at least under the current structure (except for mop-up duty). Davenport wasn't brought in with the understanding he'd be a backup all season (and potentially for 3 years if McKee continues to play on a high level). He expected to be playing some of the time and presumably feels he has earned it but won't get time because McKee is playing so well. Since his long term plan is no longer to stay at Cornell, why wait until the end of the season on the off-chance that McKee gets hurt and the team needs him to play? In terms of cost-benefit, the expected cost to the team for him leaving now rather than in April should be relatively low (knock on wood) while the benefit to him for leaving now rather than in April should be relatively great, since he gets to play on a regular basis and won't miss almost a full season of competitive action. On that basis, it makes sense to him to take the chance of harming the team and leave now.

Also, the team does have a backup goalie, one who I thought was highly recruited, notwithstanding what he's turned out to be.

Yes, it's her son. He's a great HS goalie and great kid, but I don't know if he is quite good enough to play for Cornell. I also think he is much more concerned with lacrosse.

[Q]CUlater 89 Wrote: From what I understand, when Davenport agreed to come in for this season he was told that if he played well he would get to split time with McKee (actually, I had heard that Schafer really wanted Davenport to win the job because based on last season he thought McKee wasn't the long-term answer). [/q]

If so, Schafer has pretty high expectations for goaltenders. McKee seems to be a pretty decent year-at-a-time answer.

[Q]CUlater 89 Wrote:

...Since his long term plan is no longer to stay at Cornell, why wait until the end of the season on the off-chance that McKee gets hurt and the team needs him to play?[/q]

Because he made a commitment to the team, and if McKee gets hurt the team needs him to play. That "commitment" word means a lot to me. Falls in the same category of words like "trust", "promise", "character", "integrity", etc.

[q]In terms of cost-benefit, the expected cost to the team for him leaving now rather than in April should be relatively low (knock on wood) while the benefit to him for leaving now rather than in April should be relatively great, since he gets to play on a regular basis and won't miss almost a full season of competitive action.[/q]

Agreed on the latter. The cost to the team is they're left with a much weaker insurance policy, with no way to fix it until next season. Will it matter? Let's hope not.

[q]On that basis, it makes sense to him to take the chance of harming the team and leave now.[/q]

CUlater, we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't see anything in your argument that makes me think that Davenport didn't let down his teammates and reneg on a personal commitment.

[Q]COL Nathan Jessep said:
We use words like honor, code, loyalty...we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use 'em as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it. I'd prefer you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to.[/q]

[Q]billhoward Wrote:Not that Coach Mike would be so Machiavellian, but if you take somebody who bails after two years because you're overstocked in that position, you've denied him in perpetuity to the Cantabs and Colgate and BC, etcetera.[/q] This just isn't true - he could sit out and then go to any school he wants. Sucks' sieve Tobe went to MSU at 17, got bombed, went to the USHL, and then went to Sucks. Davenport could do the same.

I think Coach deserves alot of the blame here - most coaches put their backups in for a few games during the season (Mazzoleni's 'fight' with the parents was with their back-up goalie's dad, who 'only' played a few games- inlcuding a loss to Princeton). If Coach isn't going to develop a backup at all in games, he is going to have to suffer the consequences, which are pretty predictable.

[Q]JohnnieAg'99 Wrote:I think Coach deserves alot of the blame here - most coaches put their backups in for a few games during the season (Mazzoleni's 'fight' with the parents was with their back-up goalie's dad, who 'only' played a few games- inlcuding a loss to Princeton). If Coach isn't going to develop a backup at all in games, he is going to have to suffer the consequences, which are pretty predictable. [/q]
That's easy to say, but we have no idea what was going on during practice, how Davenport looked, whether he progressed, whether he had a good attitude, etc.. It might, for instance, be a pretty fair indicator of his attitude that he split midway through the season with no warning, thus screwing his teammates. And for all we know, Davenport himself might have been cool with the whole thing, but undone by pressure from a relentless stagemother-type relative. We really have no way of knowing, so casting the blame either way is pretty dumb.

Dammit Greg, why do you always have to be a voice of reason? Now it's you're fault he left. Stupid facetimer.

Silly Greg! Don't you know it's "the fan" that matters? Why let relationships between players and coaches be dictated by...the players and coaches? We can't have that, not when there are the rumormongering masses and overeditorializing sportswriters to think about!

Let me be the first to just stand up for the poor kid.

Davenport's decision was not inappropriately selfish. He found himself on the bench behind a sophomore goalie who proved himself worthy of playing every minute of every game. It is actually more selfish of the team and its fans to expect that Davenport would sacrifice anywhere from one to three years of development at a crucial stage of his career in order to serve as an insurance policy. That isn't loyalty; it is suicide. He doesn't owe the team his continued services any more than the team owes him guaranteed playing time.

Can't believe we're several screens deep in this discussion before you pointed out an obvious other possibility: the parents from hell.

We don't know if Davenport's parents are loving, caring, nurturing, and decent. Or not. But a statistically disproportionate number of sports parents believe their baby is the best catcher, quarterback, goalie, or pole vaulter to come out of Long Island or the Iron Mountain Range, and if he isn't starting in college, it's because the coach isn't coaching right, the refs are biased, the coach can't tell who has the obvioiusly superior skills set, the defense is buddies with the other goalie and conspires to make their goalie / wonder-son look bad, yada yada.

You've seen the PSA commercial during the college hockey games about the mother who stalks away when her little girl misses up on pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey at the birthday party -- "You get your own ride home now, Missy. I can't believe I missed Pilates for this" - and then you get the tagline, ~ "If it isn't right there, why is it right here [at the rink]?" There's a reason those commercials run, and should be running.

Again, this may not be the case at all with the Davenport family.

Girlfriends can be equally protective since a lot of them (okay, some of them) have their status wrapped up in whether he's a star, starter, or reserve.

Same thing with little ballerinas and teen actresses. There was an article a year ago with a very funny line, that Hilary Duff's mom sets the gold standard for stage mothers. It probably affects her ability to land some of the roles she wants.

One last time: We don't know Davenport's parents, we don't know the above describes them. But it's like with a homicide: Make sure you question the family.

So Bill, you agree then that his actions were inappropriately selfish, you just choose to not assign blame? That sounds reasonable to me. My main issue is with the people who feel his actions were appropriate.

Umm, didn't Davenport see McKee standing there when he decided to come to Cornell? This wasn't a surprise to him. If he wanted to leave early, the proper thing to do would have been to let the coaching staff know so they could find a replacement and at least finish out this season. Furthermore, I'm sure he was getting some nice grants and very favorable conditions to earn an Ivy League degree. It's not like he wasn't getting anything out of it.

By leaving his team mid-season monsieur davenport (a) serves only his interests (b) leaves his team(mates) in a percarious position (c) looks v. bad to future coaches (d) shows his true character. Like it or not, he's a freshman in a major college athletic environment who has a big head/ego (no matter what the coach may or may not have told him). It's public knowledge the best player plays, he had to have known that coming in. Troy wasn't #1 so instead of being a man about it and playing out the rest of this season, he upped and left his team.

[Q]KenP Wrote: So Bill, you agree then that his actions were inappropriately selfish, you just choose to not assign blame? That sounds reasonable to me. My main issue is with the people who feel his actions were appropriate.[/q]

It's difficult to respond to a question where someone has reshaped the first person's comments and then asked for agreement or not.

It's too bad Davenport left the team. We don't know what's happened; there's only so much light that can be shed by Mike Schafer's two paragraphs worth of comments as quoted by the Ithaca Journal. (Somebody should call Davenport and talk to him. Ari?) Yes, Davenport let the team down because the team was counting on him to, ah, ride the bench. But no, I guess I don't feel he screwed over Cornell royally by departing. I think I and others might have felt that way a generation ago. A generation and a half ago, lots of people felt athletes let their team down by seeking free agency, or holding out for better pay. (Maybe they might have pointed to a real team player like Pete Rose. (Insert wry comment here.)) Not as many people feel that way now. As a practical matter, this reduces Cornell from three to two healthy goalies. We don't know if that entered into Davenport's thinking.

A better solution? If Davenport had told Schafer, "Look, coach, this isn't working out. Either McKee is better than you and I thought, or I'm as good in my mind and I don't have your confidence, but I need to move on from this place ... after the season ends ... which gives you time to find a different backup for the fall who doesn't mind being No. 2 or who's so good in your mind he'll make McKee be No. 2." That magnamonious gesture of course would have guaranteed any mop-up duties would go to Chabot unless McKee got hurt bad. Goalie is an odd position, maybe like quarterback in football, where if you're not No. 1, you're not going to play. If he was the No. 2 defenseman (even No. 6), he'd see playing time. Even at No. 7, he'd have the ability to play by working hard and by improving (and waiting for No 1-6 to go down or get another game DQ).

The guys who've let their teams down? The drunken (apparently) team captain at North Dakota who may be lost for the season if ND has any spine and says, "Sorry, Matt [Greene], we don't want you representing the university if you put people's lives at risk with your actions." Or the guys at Clarkson who broke rules and got tossed / suspended. Or the ones who didn't hit the books hard and are ineligible for spring semester. That's selfish, inappropriate, and inexcusable.

Maybe I'm just getting caught up in the shades of grey. There's different levels of letting the team down. Making a mental mistake that leads to a goal is a "minor" offense. Quitting halfway through the season, regardless of your role is a more serious letting down. Ditto for not making grades, breaking team rules, and so forth.

Maybe Davenport's family can't afford his tuition and needs him to work to support the family. Maybe the guy who went drinking was consoling a friend who just learned they had 2 weeks to live. Maybe Brendan Fraser didn't hand in his thesis on time because he had to bury Joe Pesci (With Honors,1994). Desparate times call for desparate measures. The law don't consider someone a murderer if they kill in self defense.

My point? A more serious offense better have a damn good reason or it reflects poorly on the individual. IF Troy's logic was that it's okay to look out for his best career interests and leave because he wanted play time now now now, then I take exception.

[q]The guys who've let their teams down? The drunken (apparently) team captain at North Dakota who may be lost for the season if ND has any spine and says, "Sorry, Matt , we don't want you representing the university if you put people's lives at risk with your actions."[/q]Just read on USCHO that he's been suspended for the next two games...against Bemidji. That'll teach him! [www.uscho.com]

[Q]KenP Wrote:
Quitting halfway through the season, regardless of your role is a more serious letting down. [/q]
We've blamed him, him, him, his parents, his girlfriend, etc. Back to Coach for a minute -

Coach's win-at-all costs mentality has obviously paid huge dividends. But it's hypocritical to get all sanctimonious when those costs occasionally have to be paid.

I've always been troubled by the fact that he (usually) plays his back-up very little (Lenny as a frosh was obviously different). Unlike SLUt, Sucks, & others, we've had a cupcake schedule this season (Sacred Heart & Canisius??). To pretend that Davenport was only good enough to get in for half a period against Army is ridiculous. Any goalie who is good enough for us to want at Goaltender U is going to have to have an ego. Coach needs to do a better job of developing his #2, for the good of the TEAM. Does anyone here want to go to Albany if McKee has the flu?

Well, it could have been worse. He could've stayed the season and then decided to jump ship next August.

IIRC, NCAA transfer rules exact a semester's worth of delay in going somewhere else if he sticks it out and spends this semester on the Cornell bench. Leaving early doesn't just get him out of an uncomfortable situation, it allows him to move on with his career and makes him more attractive to any other teams interested in him.

Schafer is entitled to think that he isn't good enough to play and Davenport is entitled to find a place where they think he is. Davenport just doesn't owe the team that much.