ELynah Forum

A decent interval has passed. I think it is time to ask the big questions:

A coach is only as good as his last season or 2. If you do not believe me ask Joe Torre or Terry Francona. Both raised their teams to the heights and were then ousted a few years later. Mike Schafer has done great things for Cornell Hockey but let's face reality, last season was a major disappointment. Between the losing record, goonish play, and the Coaches whining I was very disappointed.

I am not sure if Schafer is the man to right the ship. If I were the AD I would be inclined to let him try but make it clear there was a short leash. So, let me ask the question: Should he stay or should he go? If you are a Schafer fan tell us what would change your mind. If you are not do the same.

So when I reply "Should he stay", am I voicing my opinion or posing a question? ;-)

Good poll but wrongheaded approach.

You take "a coach is only as good as his last season or 2" as if that ought to be the measure.  In fact, it's typically just an unfortunate side effect of the irritainment media, gullible ownership, and entitled fans.

1.  There is no reason to assume anybody else out there would do a better job.  

2.  There is reason to assume that Schafer's body of work and reputation attracts prospects we would not otherwise get.

As long as those two statements hold, he should stay.  Frankly, I have a hard time imagining either changing for years to come.

Quote from: martySo when I reply "Should he stay", am I voicing my opinion or posing a question? ;-)

Don't over think it.

If he goes, just don't steal our coach again. :-}

Quote from: TrotskyGood poll but wrongheaded approach.

You take "a coach is only as good as his last season or 2" as if that ought to be the measure.  In fact, it's typically just an unfortunate side effect of the irritainment media, gullible ownership, and entitled fans.

1.  There is no reason to assume anybody else out there would do a better job.  

2.  There is reason to assume that Schafer's body of work and reputation attracts prospects we would not otherwise get.

As long as those two statements hold, he should stay.  Frankly, I have a hard time imagining either changing for years to come.

I am not sure these statements hold. They are difficult to verify at best. If we had 2 more years like the last one would you change your tune?

Quote from: Towerroad

Quote from: TrotskyGood poll but wrongheaded approach.

You take "a coach is only as good as his last season or 2" as if that ought to be the measure.  In fact, it's typically just an unfortunate side effect of the irritainment media, gullible ownership, and entitled fans.

1.  There is no reason to assume anybody else out there would do a better job.  

2.  There is reason to assume that Schafer's body of work and reputation attracts prospects we would not otherwise get.

As long as those two statements hold, he should stay.  Frankly, I have a hard time imagining either changing for years to come.

I am not sure these statements hold. They are difficult to verify at best. If we had 2 more years like the last one would you change your tune?

Probably not.  3 mediocre years would not undo 17 good and/or great ones.

Losing sucks, but panic is not effective.

This all comes down to what one thinks the "baseline" of Cornell hockey is, absent any extraordinary effect either constructive or destructive.  That in turn likely comes down to how they were during one's formative Lynah Faithful experience.  So, for example, my first three years we missed the ECAC playoffs entirely with what in today's ECAC would translate into a 6th or 7th place team.  When we perform better than that, I'm happy.  When we get to the ECAC final and/or the NCAAs, I am ecstatic.  Given that Schafer has delivered both those things regularly, I think he has "earned" the right to stay, essentially, forever.

Now for somebody who became a Cornell fan during the 105-5-2 stretch, or even during the 2002-10 stretch, their baseline is probably much higher and they assume ECAC byes fall from heaven and NCAAs bids are a civil right.  For them, finishing .485 is unforgivable.

I understand that.  I just think it's bonkers.

Cornell was one goal away from the Frozen Four just last year.

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: Towerroad

Quote from: TrotskyGood poll but wrongheaded approach.

You take "a coach is only as good as his last season or 2" as if that ought to be the measure.  In fact, it's typically just an unfortunate side effect of the irritainment media, gullible ownership, and entitled fans.

1.  There is no reason to assume anybody else out there would do a better job.  

2.  There is reason to assume that Schafer's body of work and reputation attracts prospects we would not otherwise get.

As long as those two statements hold, he should stay.  Frankly, I have a hard time imagining either changing for years to come.

I am not sure these statements hold. They are difficult to verify at best. If we had 2 more years like the last one would you change your tune?

Probably not.  3 mediocre years would not undo 17 good and/or great ones.

Losing sucks, but panic is not effective.

This all comes down to what one thinks the "baseline" of Cornell hockey is, absent any extraordinary effect either constructive or destructive.  That in turn likely comes down to how they were during one's formative Lynah Faithful experience.  So, for example, my first three years we missed the ECAC playoffs entirely with what in today's ECAC would translate into a 6th or 7th place team.  When we perform better than that, I'm happy.  When we get to the ECAC final and/or the NCAAs, I am ecstatic.  Given that Schafer has delivered both those things regularly, I think he has "earned" the right to stay, essentially, forever.

Now for somebody who became a Cornell fan during the 105-5-2 stretch, or even during the 2002-10 stretch, their baseline is probably much higher and they assume ECAC byes fall from heaven and NCAAs bids are a civil right.  For them, finishing .485 is unforgivable.

I understand that.  I just think it's bonkers.

It is always hard to give up the "devil you know" for a new one. So, to summarize, you would keep the coach even if he posted 3 consecutive sub 0.500 seasons and lead the nation in penalties each year. That is more loyalty than I could summon.

Quote from: TowerroadI am not sure these statements hold. They are difficult to verify at best. If we had 2 more years like the last one would you change your tune?

It bears noting that "the last one" involved a road win over a #1, a broken neck to a (likely) future captain, and ended a handful of bounces away from an NCAA appearance (or at least very near miss).

Quote from: Towerroad

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: Towerroad

Quote from: TrotskyGood poll but wrongheaded approach.

You take "a coach is only as good as his last season or 2" as if that ought to be the measure.  In fact, it's typically just an unfortunate side effect of the irritainment media, gullible ownership, and entitled fans.

1.  There is no reason to assume anybody else out there would do a better job.  

2.  There is reason to assume that Schafer's body of work and reputation attracts prospects we would not otherwise get.

As long as those two statements hold, he should stay.  Frankly, I have a hard time imagining either changing for years to come.

I am not sure these statements hold. They are difficult to verify at best. If we had 2 more years like the last one would you change your tune?

Probably not.  3 mediocre years would not undo 17 good and/or great ones.

Losing sucks, but panic is not effective.

This all comes down to what one thinks the "baseline" of Cornell hockey is, absent any extraordinary effect either constructive or destructive.  That in turn likely comes down to how they were during one's formative Lynah Faithful experience.  So, for example, my first three years we missed the ECAC playoffs entirely with what in today's ECAC would translate into a 6th or 7th place team.  When we perform better than that, I'm happy.  When we get to the ECAC final and/or the NCAAs, I am ecstatic.  Given that Schafer has delivered both those things regularly, I think he has "earned" the right to stay, essentially, forever.

Now for somebody who became a Cornell fan during the 105-5-2 stretch, or even during the 2002-10 stretch, their baseline is probably much higher and they assume ECAC byes fall from heaven and NCAAs bids are a civil right.  For them, finishing .485 is unforgivable.

I understand that.  I just think it's bonkers.

It is always hard to give up the "devil you know" for a new one. So, to summarize, you would keep the coach even if he posted 3 consecutive sub 0.500 seasons and lead the nation in penalties each year. That is more loyalty than I could summon.

An anxiety attack is not a business plan.

Quote from: TrotskyThis all comes down to what one thinks the "baseline" of Cornell hockey is, absent any extraordinary effect either constructive or destructive.  That in turn likely comes down to how they were during one's formative Lynah Faithful experience.  So, for example, my first three years we missed the ECAC playoffs entirely with what in today's ECAC would translate into a 6th or 7th place team.  When we perform better than that, I'm happy.  When we get to the ECAC final and/or the NCAAs, I am ecstatic.  Given that Schafer has delivered both those things regularly, I think he has "earned" the right to stay, essentially, forever.

I have joked on Twitter that Cornell and Michigan both had a Hillel sandwich of a season. Twenty years ago, I was a junior when Cornell had a shit sandwich of a season: 6-19-1, including an 11-game losing streak. The 1992-93 season was a formative experience. It made the 1996 and 1997 ECAC Championships particularly special. No later than March 1997, I also concluded that Mike Schafer had earned the right to stay forever.

Since Mike Schafer took the job, Cornell has been the premier program in the ECAC. Although the 2009-10 and 2012-13 seasons fell a little and far short of expectations, respectively, I cannot fathom that replacing Mike Schafer would improve the hockey team.

Though very disappointed with this season, I think Coach Schafer should stay. I,like Trotsky, think making it to the ECAC Finals and earning a NC$$ bid is very successful season. Schafer has delivered on that more times than not.

Given the constraints of the academic index, lack of scholarships and limited schedule, we are not going to get the blue chippers and need hope that under the radar 16/17 year olds we recruit develop into solid 2-way players and with some luck a goal scoring touch. Getting to the frozen four and winning a championship takes a lot of luck (staying healthly), puck love in addition to skill and team work. For Cornell, I think that means being healthy, being very strong defensively and getting some puck love.  

I also imagine there is quite a bit of skill and art to managing 18-23 year olds who have a full load of classes, raging hormones and every thing else that kids that age go through. Most years, the team comes together and the whole is better than the parts. Then there are some years like this one, where things are very out of sorts (at least on the ice). It is cyclic, kids come, kids graduate, and some years the mix of players is better than others. I'm willing to bet this year was an anomaly.

So, can someone post a link to the "Fire Red Berenson" thread on the Michigan boards. The maize and blue must be lining up to fire him after failing to get to the NC$$ this year.  ::rolleyes::

Quote from: ursusminorIf he goes, just don't steal our coach again. :-}

Given his astonishing levels of success at RPI so far...I don't think you have to worry about that:-P

Quote from: Towerroad

Quote from: martySo when I reply "Should he stay", am I voicing my opinion or posing a question? ;-)

Don't over think it.

Fair enough. Obviously you didn't.

Facetimer was a much better troll.

Quote from: DisplacedCornellian

Quote from: ursusminorIf he goes, just don't steal our coach again. :-}

Given his astonishing levels of success at RPI so far...I don't think you have to worry about that:-P

Wait until you see TBRW's prediction for next season. ::banana::

My concern is not so much the losses this season, but the manner of the losses. Giving up leads, inconsistency of performance from period to period, taking stupid and goonish penalties, and not doing the small things correctly (blocking shots, winning battles on the boards, etc.). Losing to a more talented team that executes well is understandable. Losing to a team of similar or lesser talent by making the same, very preventable mistakes, is not acceptable.

In spite of this, I can't fire Schafer after one bad season. Two or three more years of poor performances and underachievement, then we can consider changing the coach.

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: Towerroad

Quote from: TrotskyGood poll but wrongheaded approach.

You take "a coach is only as good as his last season or 2" as if that ought to be the measure.  In fact, it's typically just an unfortunate side effect of the irritainment media, gullible ownership, and entitled fans.

1.  There is no reason to assume anybody else out there would do a better job.  

2.  There is reason to assume that Schafer's body of work and reputation attracts prospects we would not otherwise get.

As long as those two statements hold, he should stay.  Frankly, I have a hard time imagining either changing for years to come.

I am not sure these statements hold. They are difficult to verify at best. If we had 2 more years like the last one would you change your tune?

Probably not.  3 mediocre years would not undo 17 good and/or great ones.

At some point if there ae enough losing or mediocre seasons you can identify a trend.  If relative lack of success becomes a trend then maybe you consider making changes. We're not there yet, at least not in my mind (one year does not make a trend).  Even then, as others have mentioned, you have to consider the alternatives. What's the likelihood that a new coach would have any more success than the old?  Things need to be pretty bad before you make a change just for the sake of change, IMO.

I suspect it's the other stuff that is bothering Towerroad the most.  He doesn't like the undisciplined play on the ice and schafer's attitude/bearig in many situations. I can see wanting to make changes if you don't think the team represents the University well anymore.  That's a different question from whether the won-loss record warrants a change.  but of course, perception are usually rosier when the wins are piling up.

My take on a potential coaching change, especially when the current coach has done a good job in the recent past, is always to question: Who can be brought in that is thought would do better?  If that question cannot be answered with a decent amount of certainty then I am in favor of keeping the current coach. With that being said I think that an evaluation of that question should be done every 2-3 years depending upon performance.

For me it comes down to who can CU realistically bring in that would do better in the long run? I don't know of anyone. That person might be out there I just don't know who it is. Add to it, that while this season certainly was a disappointment, it was only one real bad season. If CU has 2 more years of similar results then I would certainly reevaluate my position.

I am not so much concerned with one bad season as I am with what I perceive as the college game evolving and the Cornell coaching/recruiting not evolving to keep up. Add to that an apparent reluctance to change the way the PP is run and a commitment to play a defensive style even when the situation doesn't warrant it. (Yes, I understand the Schafer scheme, but sometimes it needs to be abandoned/changed as the season/game/period warrants) Those are little complaints for the moment but if they are not solved then they could sway me to change my mind about the coaching situation as I think the inability to adapt will lead to more seasons like this past one.

Quote from: cbuckser

Quote from: TrotskyThis all comes down to what one thinks the "baseline" of Cornell hockey is, absent any extraordinary effect either constructive or destructive.  That in turn likely comes down to how they were during one's formative Lynah Faithful experience.  So, for example, my first three years we missed the ECAC playoffs entirely with what in today's ECAC would translate into a 6th or 7th place team.  When we perform better than that, I'm happy.  When we get to the ECAC final and/or the NCAAs, I am ecstatic.  Given that Schafer has delivered both those things regularly, I think he has "earned" the right to stay, essentially, forever.

I have joked on Twitter that Cornell and Michigan both had a Hillel sandwich of a season. Twenty years ago, I was a junior when Cornell had a shit sandwich of a season: 6-19-1, including an 11-game losing streak. The 1992-93 season was a formative experience. It made the 1996 and 1997 ECAC Championships particularly special. No later than March 1997, I also concluded that Mike Schafer had earned the right to stay forever.

Since Mike Schafer took the job, Cornell has been the premier program in the ECAC. Although the 2009-10 and 2012-13 seasons fell a little and far short of expectations, respectively, I cannot fathom that replacing Mike Schafer would improve the hockey team.

This

Mike Schafer is more than a hockey coach.  He is part of the Ithaca community.  He is fiercely loyal to his team mates, players and friends.  He seldom has a bad thing to say about anyone other than officials.  He has turned down some of the top jobs in the country over the years for much more money to stay in Ithaca.  Sure he has his moments, but I think his heart is always in the right place. He is someone parents want their kids to play for.

Currently 43-3, nuff said.

I am more disappointed in this year's season than almost anybody on this forum.  I would rather watch exciting offensive hockey than defensive hockey.  I think think Cornell has been slipping these last few seasons.  I feel entitled to an NCAA tournament berth every year, or close (and with Cornell's history and fan base and the amount of time I invest following the program, I do not think this is unreasonable).  With all of that said, firing Schafer at this point is ludicrous.  As previously mentioned, firing successful coaches following a poor year or two is not a good policy.  You also imply there have been multiple recent bad seasons...and yet if Axell's stick doesn't break last year Cornell might be have been playing in the Frozen Four.  If Cornell doesn't hit multiple posts versus Q this year who knows what happens?  Overall, this year sucked, but Schafer's track record is far too good to even think about firing him after a single poor season.  Beyond the wins, he truly cares about the program and the school and the recruiting classes on paper have been strong recently.  And, as others have asked, who would be better?  When Schafer was hired it was not clear whatsoever he would be a great coach.  The program is in better standing now than it was then, but I still highly doubt Cornell could bring in some big name with a great history of success.  Basically, we got lucky with Schafer, and there's no reason to think we'll get lucky again.  

Still, I do appreciate some negativity on this forum.  I don't want Schafer to go, but I do not think anybody should be content with this display this season.  If this season is repeated for another couple years, which I doubt, then I would argue he should go.  But not yet, not even close.

Quote from: BearLoverStill, I do appreciate some negativity on this forum.  I don't want Schafer to go, but I do not think anybody should be content with this display this season.

I like this. It is a good reminder that every contrary view isn't "trolling". ScrewBU is a troll. towerroad is a fan who IMO is overreacting to a bad season but isn't crazy for taking the time to ask the question.

Of course Schafer shouldn't be fired. If a season that includes an NCAA bid, a first-round win and a finish a hair's breadth from the Final Four is part of the evidence that "there have been two bad years in a row" you need to reexamine your premises. It is also hasty to diagnose locker room issues as pathological or incurable after a single season. Yes, this year saw far too much goonery. It is not yet a pattern.

Quote from: BearLoverI am more disappointed in this year's season than almost anybody on this forum.  I would rather watch exciting offensive hockey than defensive hockey.  I think think Cornell has been slipping these last few seasons.  I feel entitled to an NCAA tournament berth every year, or close (and with Cornell's history and fan base and the amount of time I invest following the program, I do not think this is unreasonable).  With all of that said, firing Schafer at this point is ludicrous.  As previously mentioned, firing successful coaches following a poor year or two is not a good policy.  You also imply there have been multiple recent bad seasons...and yet if Axell's stick doesn't break last year Cornell might be have been playing in the Frozen Four.  If Cornell doesn't hit multiple posts versus Q this year who knows what happens?  Overall, this year sucked, but Schafer's track record is far too good to even think about firing him after a single poor season.  Beyond the wins, he truly cares about the program and the school and the recruiting classes on paper have been strong recently.  And, as others have asked, who would be better?  When Schafer was hired it was not clear whatsoever he would be a great coach.  The program is in better standing now than it was then, but I still highly doubt Cornell could bring in some big name with a great history of success.  Basically, we got lucky with Schafer, and there's no reason to think we'll get lucky again.  

Still, I do appreciate some negativity on this forum.  I don't want Schafer to go, but I do not think anybody should be content with this display this season.  If this season is repeated for another couple years, which I doubt, then I would argue he should go.  But not yet, not even close.

I don't think anyone is content with this season. However, I have to disagree with the idea that any of us have a right to feel entitled to anything regarding our program.

In my view the only ones who should feel entitled are those whose lives are directly involved with the program. The administration has a right to feel the coaches will act in the best interests of the school. The coaches should feel they have administration support. And most importantly, and also different than most Div. I sports, the players have a right to feel, within some limitations, that the coaches and school have the players best interests at heart. I don't know the inner workings of the school, but from what I see happening, I think those values are basically being reached.

As fans, I think our rights are just that all of the above are putting out their best efforts. Win or lose, I want to feel that the effort was there. Obviously at times this year not everyone, including the coaches, felt that was true. I doubt that we will, or should, ever know why that happened. However, we should take some solace that the coaches were able, to some degree, to modify that behavior. Am I happy with this season, no. Do I see signs that suggest it won't be repeated, yes.

I don't think it matters a hoot how much time any of us are investing into following the program. Unless we are actively involved with helping the program, all we get to do is to watch and hopefully enjoy. Expecting more, it seems to me, is to be acting like we are a big donor at a large Div. I football program, and I don't ever want to think we are headed in that direction.

Finally, I don't think we got lucky in finding Schafer. Before he came many had been hoping for some time that the U would find some way to bring him back. It was known how much he cared about Cornell and the program, and his reputation as a great recruiter preceeded him. I certainly didn't know anything about his X and O ability, but I suspect that was also known by those to whom it mattered. I have said it before, and will repeat it now, I think the AD has generally done a very good job in picking coaches. I just hope he can finally right the football, and maybe the basketball, program.

Jim

Thanks for the excellent reply. I agree that we should not feel entitled to any specific performance with respect to any Cornell team. The best Lacrosse game I have seen in the last 20 years we lost. However, you put your finger on something we should feel entitled to. You expressed it as the team and coaches best efforts.

We are an Ivy League team. For all the limitations that being a member puts on our athletic endeavors I have never heard a serious discussion of leaving the Ivy League so we could be free of the athletic restrictions that come with membership. As members of this elite club, we are supposed to keep athletics in their proper perspective. Cornell is a great instituion of higher learning, scholarship and charater building first and an ice hockey team second not the other way around like far too many universities. I can safely assume that no one on this board wants to trade places with Kentucky.

So, when I see a player skate to the face off circle and jam the end of his stick into an opposing players nuts, when I see that we lead the country in goonery by 1.5 minutes per game, when I see the coach repeatedly whining about officiating and badgering an opposing coach for winning a lopsided game I think that we have crossed an unwritten line about what it means to be an Ivy League team. My biggest fear is that, in order to recruit better players, we are becoming more focused on preparing players for the NHL than preparing student athletes.

I sincerely hope I am wrong. I can accept never winning another NC$$ title or even making it to the frozen four. I have a real problem with what I saw this year. I am not calling for the coaches head. However, if I were the AD I would want to sit down with the coach and understand what happened this year and to make sure he had a serious plan to right the ship. I would also make sure he knew that there was a leash and that the AD had a firm grip on it regardless of how long it was.

Two years in a row of this sort of performance and I would be rummaging around my tool shed for my pitchfork and torch.

Quote from: TowerroadSo, when I see a player skate to the face off circle and jam the end of his stick into an opposing players nuts, when I see that we lead the country in goonery by 1.5 minutes per game, when I see the coach repeatedly whining about officiating and badgering an opposing coach for winning a lopsided game I think that we have crossed an unwritten line about what it means to be an Ivy League team.

Fair enough. Most of us were bothered by the penalties and Schafer's reaction that it was the officials' fault, not our players'.  Most of that may have been nonsense to feed the media, while a very different message was delivered in the locker room.  We can hope.

"Leading the league in penalty minutes" is in a way misleading because the bulk comes from two extraordinary games.  Notice that on that list #2 was Quinnipiac and #3 was Denver.  Now, granted, the common denominator in those two games was Cornell.  I don't want our school represented by that, either.

Sorting the players by PIM, the top 8 are all returning.  Ferlin and Lowry are among them, and they may have often been retaliating against goonery directed their way.  The top three, McCarron, Mowrey, and de Swardt, are less, in the immortal words of R. J. MacReady, "even tempered."

So we'll have a perfect chance next year to test the hypothesis that this was an aberration and not a game plan.

Quote from: cbuckserSince Mike Schafer took the job, Cornell has been the premier program in the ECAC. Although the 2009-10 and 2012-13 seasons fell a little and far short of expectations, respectively, I cannot fathom that replacing Mike Schafer would improve the hockey team.

Well said.

Looking at this as an outsider, I see there being two related, but separate, problems that the Ivies face. One is the lack of athletic scholarships, and the other is the academic standards. The first could be changed if the school Presidents or whoever decides on these things want to, but the second I doubt that you even want to change. The only reason that the Ivies and some other schools are able to compete at the level they do in hockey is the presence of the Junior leagues in Canada which syphon off the hockey players who are not interested or even capable of higher education. The lack of such as an alternative in basketball and football gives IMHO no hope in those sports.

Many other schools face one or both of the same problems, perhaps at a lower level, but also perhaps additional problems. Union, also without athletic scholarships, got to the the FF last year. Their academic standards are lower than Cornell's, but they do have academic standards. If they can get to the FF, than so should any other ECAC school. Speaking from RPI's point of view, we do offer scholarships, and although the academic standards are not at the level of the Ivies, there are players who otherwise might be of interest, who wouldn't be admitted. In addition, we have other significant problems that Cornell doesn't have: being a technical school with a limited choice of majors, the male/female ratio, and beautiful downtown Troy. (I was told that the m/f problem is not real because the players all have girlfriends already, but I think it is.)

In my head, I saw the end of the 2009-10 season to be a major decision point for Schafer himself. If ever he thought about trying his hand at the pro-level, that was going to be it, considering CU had just come off an ECAC Championship, was losing the likes of Scrivens, Greening, and the Nashes, and had an obvious successor already on the bench in Casey Jones.  In my (probably fictional) scenario, that was the point where Schafer had to decide whether he was going to be a Jack Parker/Red Berenson and stay at the college level for the rest of his career, or try to become a Bob Johnson and make the jump to the pro level.

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: TowerroadSo, when I see a player skate to the face off circle and jam the end of his stick into an opposing players nuts, when I see that we lead the country in goonery by 1.5 minutes per game, when I see the coach repeatedly whining about officiating and badgering an opposing coach for winning a lopsided game I think that we have crossed an unwritten line about what it means to be an Ivy League team.

Fair enough. Most of us were bothered by the penalties and Schafer's reaction that it was the officials' fault, not our players'.  Most of that may have been nonsense to feed the media, while a very different message was delivered in the locker room.  We can hope.

"Leading the league in penalty minutes" is in a way misleading because the bulk comes from two extraordinary games.  Notice that on that list #2 was Quinnipiac and #3 was Denver.  Now, granted, the common denominator in those two games was Cornell.  I don't want our school represented by that, either.

Sorting the players by PIM, the top 8 are all returning.  Ferlin and Lowry are among them, and they may have often been retaliating against goonery directed their way.  The top three, McCarron, Mowrey, and de Swardt, are less, in the immortal words of R. J. MacReady, "even tempered."

So we'll have a perfect chance next year to test the hypothesis that this was an aberration and not a game plan.

Additionally I think we need to look at the PIM's before and after the Brown game where Schafer sat many players. Before that game CU was averaging 19.05 PIM per game and after that they averaged 16.67 PIM per game. It's not a significant reduction but it did go in the right direction. Additionally, and I am not excusing what happened, the 100 PIM game with Q is in there in the "after Brown game" portion of which 63 minutes were handed out at one time. If the Q game is excluded then the average drops to 10.71 PIM per game. So Schafer did try and I think sucessfully for the most part send a message by sitting players.

Quote from: MattSAdditionally I think we need to look at the PIM's before and after the Brown game where Schafer sat many players. Before that game CU was averaging 19.05 PIM per game and after that they averaged 16.67 PIM per game. It's not a significant reduction but it did go in the right direction. Additionally, and I am not excusing what happened, the 100 PIM game with Q is in there in the "after Brown game" portion of which 63 minutes were handed out at one time. If the Q game is excluded then the average drops to 10.71 PIM per game. So Schafer did try and I think sucessfully for the most part send a message by sitting players.

That's a good line of inquiry. But remember that it's a really small sample so the change might not be statistically significant.

Quote from: KeithK

Quote from: MattSAdditionally I think we need to look at the PIM's before and after the Brown game where Schafer sat many players. Before that game CU was averaging 19.05 PIM per game and after that they averaged 16.67 PIM per game. It's not a significant reduction but it did go in the right direction. Additionally, and I am not excusing what happened, the 100 PIM game with Q is in there in the "after Brown game" portion of which 63 minutes were handed out at one time. If the Q game is excluded then the average drops to 10.71 PIM per game. So Schafer did try and I think sucessfully for the most part send a message by sitting players.

That's a good line of inquiry. But remember that it's a really small sample so the change might not be statistically significant.

I think if you applied similar logic to Q or Denver they would start looking like saints as well.

Quote from: Towerroad

Quote from: KeithK

Quote from: MattSAdditionally I think we need to look at the PIM's before and after the Brown game where Schafer sat many players. Before that game CU was averaging 19.05 PIM per game and after that they averaged 16.67 PIM per game. It's not a significant reduction but it did go in the right direction. Additionally, and I am not excusing what happened, the 100 PIM game with Q is in there in the "after Brown game" portion of which 63 minutes were handed out at one time. If the Q game is excluded then the average drops to 10.71 PIM per game. So Schafer did try and I think sucessfully for the most part send a message by sitting players.

That's a good line of inquiry. But remember that it's a really small sample so the change might not be statistically significant.

I think if you applied similar logic to Q or Denver they would start looking like saints as well.

What logic are you refering to? Keith's? Or some part of Matt's?

Quote from: Jim Hyla

Quote from: Towerroad

Quote from: KeithK

Quote from: MattSAdditionally I think we need to look at the PIM's before and after the Brown game where Schafer sat many players. Before that game CU was averaging 19.05 PIM per game and after that they averaged 16.67 PIM per game. It's not a significant reduction but it did go in the right direction. Additionally, and I am not excusing what happened, the 100 PIM game with Q is in there in the "after Brown game" portion of which 63 minutes were handed out at one time. If the Q game is excluded then the average drops to 10.71 PIM per game. So Schafer did try and I think sucessfully for the most part send a message by sitting players.

That's a good line of inquiry. But remember that it's a really small sample so the change might not be statistically significant.

I think if you applied similar logic to Q or Denver they would start looking like saints as well.

What logic are you refering to? Keith's? Or some part of Matt's?

I assume he means Matts.

I made a scatter plot of Cornell's penalties and minutes by game. From visual insection (which can be misleading) there's a little bit of a downward trend in penalty minutes after the Brown game (game 20), of course not including the Quinnipiac brawl. There might be a comparable trend with minutes but it's very small if it's there. I suspect that a rigorous statistical analysis (which I'm not inclined to do at the moment) would show that these trends aren't statistically significant.

For kicks I plotted the data for Q alongside. There isn't really a lot fo difference between the trends.

Quote from: Jim Hyla

Quote from: BearLoverI am more disappointed in this year's season than almost anybody on this forum.  I would rather watch exciting offensive hockey than defensive hockey.  I think think Cornell has been slipping these last few seasons.  I feel entitled to an NCAA tournament berth every year, or close (and with Cornell's history and fan base and the amount of time I invest following the program, I do not think this is unreasonable).  With all of that said, firing Schafer at this point is ludicrous.  As previously mentioned, firing successful coaches following a poor year or two is not a good policy.  You also imply there have been multiple recent bad seasons...and yet if Axell's stick doesn't break last year Cornell might be have been playing in the Frozen Four.  If Cornell doesn't hit multiple posts versus Q this year who knows what happens?  Overall, this year sucked, but Schafer's track record is far too good to even think about firing him after a single poor season.  Beyond the wins, he truly cares about the program and the school and the recruiting classes on paper have been strong recently.  And, as others have asked, who would be better?  When Schafer was hired it was not clear whatsoever he would be a great coach.  The program is in better standing now than it was then, but I still highly doubt Cornell could bring in some big name with a great history of success.  Basically, we got lucky with Schafer, and there's no reason to think we'll get lucky again.  

Still, I do appreciate some negativity on this forum.  I don't want Schafer to go, but I do not think anybody should be content with this display this season.  If this season is repeated for another couple years, which I doubt, then I would argue he should go.  But not yet, not even close.

I don't think it matters a hoot how much time any of us are investing into following the program. Unless we are actively involved with helping the program, all we get to do is to watch and hopefully enjoy. Expecting more, it seems to me, is to be acting like we are a big donor at a large Div. I football program, and I don't ever want to think we are headed in that direction.

I am saying that if I am going to put so much into following the program, I expect them to win.  If they are not going to win, I am not going to put as much in to following them.

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: Jim Hyla

Quote from: BearLoverI am more disappointed in this year's season than almost anybody on this forum.  I would rather watch exciting offensive hockey than defensive hockey.  I think think Cornell has been slipping these last few seasons.  I feel entitled to an NCAA tournament berth every year, or close (and with Cornell's history and fan base and the amount of time I invest following the program, I do not think this is unreasonable).  With all of that said, firing Schafer at this point is ludicrous.  As previously mentioned, firing successful coaches following a poor year or two is not a good policy.  You also imply there have been multiple recent bad seasons...and yet if Axell's stick doesn't break last year Cornell might be have been playing in the Frozen Four.  If Cornell doesn't hit multiple posts versus Q this year who knows what happens?  Overall, this year sucked, but Schafer's track record is far too good to even think about firing him after a single poor season.  Beyond the wins, he truly cares about the program and the school and the recruiting classes on paper have been strong recently.  And, as others have asked, who would be better?  When Schafer was hired it was not clear whatsoever he would be a great coach.  The program is in better standing now than it was then, but I still highly doubt Cornell could bring in some big name with a great history of success.  Basically, we got lucky with Schafer, and there's no reason to think we'll get lucky again.  

Still, I do appreciate some negativity on this forum.  I don't want Schafer to go, but I do not think anybody should be content with this display this season.  If this season is repeated for another couple years, which I doubt, then I would argue he should go.  But not yet, not even close.

I don't think it matters a hoot how much time any of us are investing into following the program. Unless we are actively involved with helping the program, all we get to do is to watch and hopefully enjoy. Expecting more, it seems to me, is to be acting like we are a big donor at a large Div. I football program, and I don't ever want to think we are headed in that direction.

I am saying that if I am going to put so much into following the program, I expect them to win.  If they are not going to win, I am not going to put as much in to following them.

That's a reasonable position to take. I think it's short sighted though. There's more to watching sports and being a fan than just celebrating wins. There's a lot of fun to be had watching teams that don't win if you can just sit back and enjoy the ride.

For example, I started watching Cornell hockey in the aforementioned 92-93 season. Te results on the ice were brutal but even still I had a blast as a fan and became absolutely hooked (and hooked on hockey in general, which I wasn't really a fan of before that),

Quote from: KeithK

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: Jim Hyla

Quote from: BearLoverI am more disappointed in this year's season than almost anybody on this forum.  I would rather watch exciting offensive hockey than defensive hockey.  I think think Cornell has been slipping these last few seasons.  I feel entitled to an NCAA tournament berth every year, or close (and with Cornell's history and fan base and the amount of time I invest following the program, I do not think this is unreasonable).  With all of that said, firing Schafer at this point is ludicrous.  As previously mentioned, firing successful coaches following a poor year or two is not a good policy.  You also imply there have been multiple recent bad seasons...and yet if Axell's stick doesn't break last year Cornell might be have been playing in the Frozen Four.  If Cornell doesn't hit multiple posts versus Q this year who knows what happens?  Overall, this year sucked, but Schafer's track record is far too good to even think about firing him after a single poor season.  Beyond the wins, he truly cares about the program and the school and the recruiting classes on paper have been strong recently.  And, as others have asked, who would be better?  When Schafer was hired it was not clear whatsoever he would be a great coach.  The program is in better standing now than it was then, but I still highly doubt Cornell could bring in some big name with a great history of success.  Basically, we got lucky with Schafer, and there's no reason to think we'll get lucky again.  

Still, I do appreciate some negativity on this forum.  I don't want Schafer to go, but I do not think anybody should be content with this display this season.  If this season is repeated for another couple years, which I doubt, then I would argue he should go.  But not yet, not even close.

I don't think it matters a hoot how much time any of us are investing into following the program. Unless we are actively involved with helping the program, all we get to do is to watch and hopefully enjoy. Expecting more, it seems to me, is to be acting like we are a big donor at a large Div. I football program, and I don't ever want to think we are headed in that direction.

I am saying that if I am going to put so much into following the program, I expect them to win.  If they are not going to win, I am not going to put as much in to following them.

That's a reasonable position to take. I think it's short sighted though. There's more to watching sports and being a fan than just celebrating wins. There's a lot of fun to be had watching teams that don't win if you can just sit back and enjoy the ride.

For example, I started watching Cornell hockey in the aforementioned 92-93 season. Te results on the ice were brutal but even still I had a blast as a fan and became absolutely hooked (and hooked on hockey in general, which I wasn't really a fan of before that),

I started following the team in the late '80s but didn't see any games at Lynah regularly until the early '90s. The '93-'94 team was Not Good, but I had a hell of a lot of fun going to games that year. In particular, the heckling of the Keebler Elves was pretty epic.

Quote from: Jim Hyla

Quote from: Towerroad

Quote from: KeithK

Quote from: MattSAdditionally I think we need to look at the PIM's before and after the Brown game where Schafer sat many players. Before that game CU was averaging 19.05 PIM per game and after that they averaged 16.67 PIM per game. It's not a significant reduction but it did go in the right direction. Additionally, and I am not excusing what happened, the 100 PIM game with Q is in there in the "after Brown game" portion of which 63 minutes were handed out at one time. If the Q game is excluded then the average drops to 10.71 PIM per game. So Schafer did try and I think sucessfully for the most part send a message by sitting players.

That's a good line of inquiry. But remember that it's a really small sample so the change might not be statistically significant.

I think if you applied similar logic to Q or Denver they would start looking like saints as well.

What logic are you refering to? Keith's? Or some part of Matt's?

Matts

Quote from: BearLoverI am saying that if I am going to put so much into following the program, I expect them to win.  If they are not going to win, I am not going to put as much in to following them.

I don't think anybody misunderstood what you were saying. I think it's a ridiculous position to take, personally. Nobody likes bandwagon "fans," and there's a reason for it. They don't have any special love for Cornell hockey, they just happened to attend Cornell and like to be fans of a winning hockey team, and IMHO that's a pretty weak kind of "fandom."

Quote from: BearLoverI am saying that if I am going to put so much into following the program, I expect them to win.  If they are not going to win, I am not going to put as much in to following them.

This is a fascinating statement to think about in terms of fan psychology.  Do we become fans of things that we genuinely like, or because there's a quality product?  Hockey is a big sport on the Cornell campus.  I think it's a combination of factors: 1) Historically, it's been a good program and it's one of the few sports in which we're regularly nationally competitive. 2) There are a lot of people on the CU campus who genuinely like hockey. 3) The venue atmosphere & "Lynah Faithful" membership has made it a trendy "thing to do" in a see/be seen aspect.  For the last game of the 1992-93 season, some student season ticket holders showed up with paper bags over their head, but they still showed up, even after 11-straight losses.

One example I'll use is Trinity College Squash. The squash matches are known to be jam-packed and rowdy. Do you ever expect to hear out of American undergrads anywhere "I'm big into squash?"  But when you put them at a place where the squash team has won 12 of 13 national championships and had a decade-long winning streak, they're willing to put in the effort to show up and watch and learn and really get into the sport.  How many of you have taken the time to go to more than one squash match while at Cornell?  The CU Squash team has cracked the top 5 nationally in the past 2 years. Does knowing this make you more interested in checking them out or is there no change?  Interesting reaction, right?

I'm guilty myself. I watched my first live basketball game since college when CU made the NCAAs, and even went to Syracuse for the Kentucky game.  I hate watching basketball. I think it's a dumb sport for many reasons I won't go into here. Yet there I was, maybe because of the noteriety, and the magnitude of the team's accomplishment.  I don't understand wrestling much at all, but I beamed with pride when I found out that Kyle Dake won his final last week.  Baseball and hockey have always been my favorite sports, but my time at Cornell gave me the opportunity to become a big fan of the game of lacrosse as well.  Would I have become as big a fan if CU lax didn't have its historical and current pedigree?  I don't know.

Fan psychology is so weird: Americans love winning and dominance (well worded by BearLover's statement above), yet always yearn for the ultimate underdog to take out a dominant Goliath (as long as its not YOUR Goliath, right?).  We take pride in being there when a team is pathetic and then feel justified in sneering down at "bandwagoners" when fortunes turn for the better.  We get annoyed with other huge, arrogant opposing fanbases, yet celebrate the traditions of our own.  Basically, everyone possesses some level of hypocrisy when it comes to sports.

Quote from: RichHI'm guilty myself. I watched my first live basketball game since college when CU made the NCAAs, and even went to Syracuse for the Kentucky game.  I hate watching basketball. I think it's a dumb sport for many reasons I won't go into here. Yet there I was, maybe because of the noteriety, and the magnitude of the team's accomplishment.  I don't understand wrestling much at all, but I beamed with pride when I found out that Kyle Dake won his final last week.  Baseball and hockey have always been my favorite sports, but my time at Cornell gave me the opportunity to become a big fan of the game of lacrosse as well.  Would I have become as big a fan if CU lax didn't have its historical and current pedigree?  I don't know.

The question I have for you is did you consider yourself a Cornell basketball fan when you were watching the tournament teams?  I watched at least one of the tournament games that Cornell played in those years even though I don't like squeakball but I wouldn't have ever said I was a fan of the team. I'm just a proud Cornellian who liked seeing my school do well.  Just attending a sporting event doesn't make one a "fan".  At least not in the way I use the word (short for "fanatic").  If one isn't a fan it's certainly more entertaining to watch a good team play than a bad one (generally speaking).

WHY ARE SO MANY OF YOU SO WRONG ABOUT BASKETBALL!?

Basketball and hockey are not mutually exclusive. It isn't like being a fan of both hockey and watching children drown in insufficiently frozen lakes.

Quote from: ugarteWHY ARE SO MANY OF YOU SO WRONG ABOUT BASKETBALL!?

Basketball and hockey are not mutually exclusive. It isn't like being a fan of both hockey and watching children drown in insufficiently frozen lakes.

Swimming upstream, are we.:-D

Quote from: ursusminorthe male/female ratio

This one is introduces an inclusion bias and is susceptible to too many confounding variables. You should instead use the male/attractive female ratio.::bolt::

Quote from: TimV

Quote from: ursusminorthe male/female ratio

This one is introduces an inclusion bias and is susceptible to too many confounding variables. You should instead use the male/attractive female ratio.::bolt::

Because among the characteristics associated with male engineers is "attractiveness" right? Welcome to the 21st Century.

QuoteI am saying that if I am going to put so much into following the program, I expect them to win.  If they are not going to win, I am not going to put as much in to following them.

This has to be joking, if not outright trolling.  It's as if somebody tried to personify an Onion parody of a Patriots fan posting on Urban Baby.

4 days short of 4/1, but I aint buying this is a living human being's mindset.

Quote from: Trotsky

QuoteI am saying that if I am going to put so much into following the program, I expect them to win.  If they are not going to win, I am not going to put as much in to following them.

This has to be joking, if not outright trolling.  It's as if somebody tried to personify an Onion parody of a Patriots fan posting on Urban Baby.

4 days short of 4/1, but I aint buying this is a living human being's mindset.

I'm going to play my "call out" card here. This is exactly the way most people act, even if they don't admit it. I know for a fact that this is true for me: I pay more attention when Cornell is doing well than when they are doing poorly. I'm neither proud of it nor ashamed of it: it just is what it is. BearLover is at least being honest.

Quote from: Kyle Rose

Quote from: Trotsky

QuoteI am saying that if I am going to put so much into following the program, I expect them to win.  If they are not going to win, I am not going to put as much in to following them.

This has to be joking, if not outright trolling.  It's as if somebody tried to personify an Onion parody of a Patriots fan posting on Urban Baby.

4 days short of 4/1, but I aint buying this is a living human being's mindset.

I'm going to play my "call out" card here. This is exactly the way most people act, even if they don't admit it. I know for a fact that this is true for me: I pay more attention when Cornell is doing well than when they are doing poorly. I'm neither proud of it nor ashamed of it: it just is what it is. BearLover is at least being honest.

I think it's slightly valid for a lot of people.  I picked all the best teams in professional sports when I was five, so I'm a Niners fan.  I spent the last decade following the Niners pretty closely, but my interest definitely increased when they got good.

That being said, ditching a team for not winning is, obviously, lame.

Quote from: Kyle Rose

Quote from: Trotsky

QuoteI am saying that if I am going to put so much into following the program, I expect them to win.  If they are not going to win, I am not going to put as much in to following them.

This has to be joking, if not outright trolling.  It's as if somebody tried to personify an Onion parody of a Patriots fan posting on Urban Baby.

4 days short of 4/1, but I aint buying this is a living human being's mindset.

I'm going to play my "call out" card here. This is exactly the way most people act, even if they don't admit it. I know for a fact that this is true for me: I pay more attention when Cornell is doing well than when they are doing poorly. I'm neither proud of it nor ashamed of it: it just is what it is. BearLover is at least being honest.

Nope.  To be an honest rogue is still to be a rogue.

I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he's kidding.  And I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are being perverse in arguing a point for pleasure.

"Mediocrities everywhere, I absolve you."

Quote from: DafatoneThat being said, ditching a team for not winning is, obviously, lame.

And yet, neither I nor BearLover offered anything like "ditching [the] team". Your straw man is burning.

Quote from: TrotskyI'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he's kidding.  And I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are being perverse in arguing a point for pleasure.

"Mediocrities everywhere, I absolve you."

You win. I admit you are a better fan than I am.

Next.

Quote from: ugarte

Quote from: TimV

Quote from: ursusminorthe male/female ratio

This one is introduces an inclusion bias and is susceptible to too many confounding variables. You should instead use the male/attractive female ratio.::bolt::

Because among the characteristics associated with male engineers is "attractiveness" right? Welcome to the 21st Century.

What?  You don't watch Big Bang Theory???::wank::

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: Kyle Rose

Quote from: Trotsky

QuoteI am saying that if I am going to put so much into following the program, I expect them to win.  If they are not going to win, I am not going to put as much in to following them.

This has to be joking, if not outright trolling.  It's as if somebody tried to personify an Onion parody of a Patriots fan posting on Urban Baby.

4 days short of 4/1, but I aint buying this is a living human being's mindset.

I'm going to play my "call out" card here. This is exactly the way most people act, even if they don't admit it. I know for a fact that this is true for me: I pay more attention when Cornell is doing well than when they are doing poorly. I'm neither proud of it nor ashamed of it: it just is what it is. BearLover is at least being honest.

Nope.  To be an honest rogue is still to be a rogue.

I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he's kidding.  And I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are being perverse in arguing a point for pleasure.

"Mediocrities everywhere, I absolve you."

It's all a manner of degrees.  If someone's attitude is "I will not pay attention to the team unless it is challenging for the national championship!" then they're not really a fan.  If the attitude is "the team isn't winning so I spend less time obsessively reading eLynah and am a little less likely to make long road trips to see the team play" then that's pretty damn reasonable.  Only a true fanatic's intesity is completely unaffected by the results on the ice.

Not that there's anything wrong with being a true fanatic!

Quote from: Kyle Rose

Quote from: TrotskyI'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he's kidding.  And I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are being perverse in arguing a point for pleasure.

"Mediocrities everywhere, I absolve you."

You win. I admit you are a better fan than I am.

Next.

And.................. scene.

Absolutely ridiculous overreaction to my last post.  And it's not the disagreement that bothers me; it's the trite smartass "no one can possibly be this dumb, he must be a troll" comments that twelve-year-olds go around posting on the internet.  

I never said at any point I wouldn't follow the team if they were bad.  I said I wouldn't follow them as much, and I wouldn't commit as much to them.  
Are you honestly telling me that you'd go to exactly as many games and post on this forum exactly as much and sit through exactly as many Redcast broadcasts if Cornell were .400 instead of .650?  Do you honestly think nearly as many people would pack Lynah in the first place if Cornell hadn't won so much in the past?  You're delusional if you think so.  I'm not travelling 8 hours to watch a shitty team play, I'll tell you that much, and I doubt there are many here who would.  I'm never going to stop following Cornell hockey, but I am sure as hell not putting in as much effort as when they are actually good.  

Who here followed women's hockey until they got good these past four seasons?  5% of who follow them now?  What a bunch of hypocrites.

Quote from: BearLoverAbsolutely ridiculous overreaction to my last post.  And it's not the disagreement that bothers me; it's the trite smartass "no one can possibly be this dumb, he must be a troll" comments that twelve-year-olds go around posting on the internet.  

I never said at any point I wouldn't follow the team if they were bad.  I said I wouldn't follow them as much, and I wouldn't commit as much to them.  
Are you honestly telling me that you'd go to exactly as many games and post on this forum exactly as much and sit through exactly as many Redcast broadcasts if Cornell were .400 instead of .650?  Do you honestly think nearly as many people would pack Lynah in the first place if Cornell hadn't won so much in the past?  You're delusional if you think so.  I'm not travelling 8 hours to watch a shitty team play, I'll tell you that much, and I doubt there are many here who would.  I'm never going to stop following Cornell hockey, but I am sure as hell not putting in as much effort as when they are actually good.  

Who here followed women's hockey until they got good these past four seasons?  5% of who follow them now?  What a bunch of hypocrites.

Agreed, 100%.

Quote from: TimV::wank::

Hang a sock on the door

Quote from: Kyle Rose

Quote from: DafatoneThat being said, ditching a team for not winning is, obviously, lame.

And yet, neither I nor BearLover offered anything like "ditching [the] team". Your straw man is burning.

I didn't mean to point that at anyone.

There's another thing here that may be at play. Speaking for myself, I chose to go to Cornell over an other Ivy and two safety schools (yes, HYPster trolls, some of us were accepted to other Ivies) for several reasons, one of which was the sheer scope of what Cornell has to offer. This includes the "any study" part, but it also includes one of the largest offerings of varsity sports in the country. (Actually, I think it is the largest.)

It stands to reason that as Cornell students we are introduced to new sports and, during our time on the hill, become devotees of some of them. It's natural that even naive, facetimer students are attracted to the sports in which Cornell is highly competitive. But over time, especially in a sport like hockey for which Cornell fans pride themselves for being knowledgeable, many facetimers learn about the sport and themselves become fans.

So sure, our interest will wane when a team isn't doing well. But I think most of us probably came to Cornell interested in a much narrower range of sports than when we left it. (Apologies to non-alums.) And, particularly thanks to the Internet, we follow sports in this wider range at a much higher intensity than we would otherwise, even if our interest vacillates with the fortunes of the teams.

Are you daft, man? This is not Jack Parker, who hit the pinnacle of his career with BU's improbable OT win over Miami in 2009 and might have decided at 64, 65 to end on a high note. The teams were competitive since then but the off-ice issues the players created since then dimmed his luster and will make people wonder, did Parker jump, or was he pushed into retirement. Schafer has a lot of career left in him.

I'm more worried we'll have a poll in a couple years, when his kids are older and in college, "Why didn't Cornell do more to keep the best coach Cornell ever had post-Harkness?" Schafer might want to see what he can do at a different level.

(Yeah, I had trouble for a moment figuring out which way to vote for The Man Should Stay. Sometimes polls shouldn't use song titles.)

Quote from: BearLoverAbsolutely ridiculous overreaction to my last post.  And it's not the disagreement that bothers me; it's the trite smartass "no one can possibly be this dumb, he must be a troll" comments that twelve-year-olds go around posting on the internet.  

I never said at any point I wouldn't follow the team if they were bad.  I said I wouldn't follow them as much, and I wouldn't commit as much to them.  
Are you honestly telling me that you'd go to exactly as many games and post on this forum exactly as much and sit through exactly as many Redcast broadcasts if Cornell were .400 instead of .650?  Do you honestly think nearly as many people would pack Lynah in the first place if Cornell hadn't won so much in the past?  You're delusional if you think so.  I'm not travelling 8 hours to watch a shitty team play, I'll tell you that much, and I doubt there are many here who would.  I'm never going to stop following Cornell hockey, but I am sure as hell not putting in as much effort as when they are actually good.  

Who here followed women's hockey until they got good these past four seasons?  5% of who follow them now?  What a bunch of hypocrites.

Well, the person who most questioned/criticized your post (Trotsky) is probably in the category of people whose devotion to Cornell hockey is unchanged with record. And he has the track record to prove it (years of traveling to every game post graduation even when he lived six or more hours away). So no hypocrisy there.

Personally I find that I do read this forum just as obsessively when the team is doing poorly as when doing well. What sometimes lessens my enthusiam for eLynah is when the forum devolves into overwhelming negarivity. That's less fun to read thatn watching an abyssmal hockey team play.

Quote from: KeithKPersonally I find that I do read this forum just as obsessively when the team is doing poorly as when doing well. What sometimes lessens my enthusiam for eLynah is when the forum devolves into overwhelming negarivity. That's less fun to read that watching an abyssmal hockey team play.

Said much better (no surprise) and more tactfully (even less of a surprise) than I did.

210 days until the UNO game.

Quote from: BearLoverAbsolutely ridiculous overreaction to my last post.  And it's not the disagreement that bothers me; it's the trite smartass "no one can possibly be this dumb, he must be a troll" comments that twelve-year-olds go around posting on the internet.  

I never said at any point I wouldn't follow the team if they were bad.  I said I wouldn't follow them as much, and I wouldn't commit as much to them.  
Are you honestly telling me that you'd go to exactly as many games and post on this forum exactly as much and sit through exactly as many Redcast broadcasts if Cornell were .400 instead of .650?  Do you honestly think nearly as many people would pack Lynah in the first place if Cornell hadn't won so much in the past?  You're delusional if you think so.  I'm not travelling 8 hours to watch a shitty team play, I'll tell you that much, and I doubt there are many here who would.  I'm never going to stop following Cornell hockey, but I am sure as hell not putting in as much effort as when they are actually good.  

Who here followed women's hockey until they got good these past four seasons?  5% of who follow them now?  What a bunch of hypocrites.

I, for one, don't think all of it was an overreaction, my post for example:-D. What got me going was your use of entitled. I have to say that even I would do more when the program is successful, then when it's a failure. However, to me, to be a failure requires a major change. I don't consider any of Schafer's years to be enough of a failure to change my enthusiasm.

Saying entitled is a whole different thing. That, at least for me, raises fanhood to a whole different level. I think if you go back and reread your post without the section on being entitled, because you're a devoted fan, then you'll see that it takes on a whole new meaning. And for me, that new meaning is one that I can understand.

Sometimes a small change can have major implications.

I have a finite amount of sports enthusiasm/viewing time. Over the course of the year I follow the Yankees and Big Red Hockey and Lacrosse. In recent years I have started adding the Big Red Women to my hockey time.

How a team does over the course of a year effect the percentage of time I devote to it. If the Yankees are in the Series I spend less time rooting for our Hockey Team in the fall. If the hockey teams fare poorly I will spend more on the Hot Stove Season and start focusing on Lacrosse earlier and this year I shifted to the Womens Hockey team.

Call me a facetimer if you want but we all have choices about how much time and effort we are willing to invest in a particular team. Winning teams get more attention (seriously who follows Big Red Football) and teams and coaches that "play the game right" get more of my attention.

I started loosing interest in this years mens team somewhere in Jan. I watched more Womens games from that time on.

Well, the good news is you should have plenty of time to root for our Hockey Team in the fall!

Quote from: Jordan 04Well, the good news is you should have plenty of time to root for our Hockey Team in the fall!

I am sure I will be rooting for both of them in Nov. Never count the Yankees and their checkbook out at the start of the season.

Quote from: ugarteWHY ARE SO MANY OF YOU SO WRONG ABOUT BASKETBALL!?

Basketball and hockey are not mutually exclusive. It isn't like being a fan of both hockey and watching children drown in insufficiently frozen lakes.

I don't think anyone said they're mutually exclusive.  I can't speak for everyone, of course, but I never said "I like hockey, and therefore I dislike basketball."  I dislike basketball because I find it not to be entertaining, independently of finding hockey to be awesome.

Quote from: Josh '99

Quote from: ugarteWHY ARE SO MANY OF YOU SO WRONG ABOUT BASKETBALL!?

Basketball and hockey are not mutually exclusive. It isn't like being a fan of both hockey and watching children drown in insufficiently frozen lakes.

I don't think anyone said they're mutually exclusive.  I can't speak for everyone, of course, but I never said "I like hockey, and therefore I dislike basketball."  I dislike basketball because I find it not to be entertaining, independently of finding hockey to be awesome.

Exactly.  Now the only question is where will ugarte find media sources with any basketball coverage?

Quote from: RichH

Quote from: Josh '99

Quote from: ugarteWHY ARE SO MANY OF YOU SO WRONG ABOUT BASKETBALL!?

Basketball and hockey are not mutually exclusive. It isn't like being a fan of both hockey and watching children drown in insufficiently frozen lakes.

I don't think anyone said they're mutually exclusive.  I can't speak for everyone, of course, but I never said "I like hockey, and therefore I dislike basketball."  I dislike basketball because I find it not to be entertaining, independently of finding hockey to be awesome.

Exactly.  Now the only question is where will ugarte find media sources with any basketball coverage?

This is the crux of my issue, really. Some of you seem to dislike basketball at least in part because it is popular. It oozes from the tone - "squeakball" and such.

And yet you probably complain about hipsters, too.

Quote from: ugarte

Quote from: RichH

Quote from: Josh '99

Quote from: ugarteWHY ARE SO MANY OF YOU SO WRONG ABOUT BASKETBALL!?

Basketball and hockey are not mutually exclusive. It isn't like being a fan of both hockey and watching children drown in insufficiently frozen lakes.

I don't think anyone said they're mutually exclusive.  I can't speak for everyone, of course, but I never said "I like hockey, and therefore I dislike basketball."  I dislike basketball because I find it not to be entertaining, independently of finding hockey to be awesome.

Exactly.  Now the only question is where will ugarte find media sources with any basketball coverage?

This is the crux of my issue, really. Some of you seem to dislike basketball at least in part because it is popular. It oozes from the tone - "squeakball" and such.

And yet you probably complain about hipsters, too.

On your first, point...you'll just have to trust me.  I like football, but am not offput by coverage or hype (excepting combine/draft nonsense).

On your second point, no. I complain about the hipster bashers (http://www.themorningnews.org/article/look-at-this-fucking-hipster-basher).

I bashed hipster bashers before it was cool...

Quote from: ugarte

Quote from: RichH

Quote from: Josh '99

Quote from: ugarteWHY ARE SO MANY OF YOU SO WRONG ABOUT BASKETBALL!?

Basketball and hockey are not mutually exclusive. It isn't like being a fan of both hockey and watching children drown in insufficiently frozen lakes.

I don't think anyone said they're mutually exclusive.  I can't speak for everyone, of course, but I never said "I like hockey, and therefore I dislike basketball."  I dislike basketball because I find it not to be entertaining, independently of finding hockey to be awesome.

Exactly.  Now the only question is where will ugarte find media sources with any basketball coverage?

This is the crux of my issue, really. Some of you seem to dislike basketball at least in part because it is popular. It oozes from the tone - "squeakball" and such.

And yet you probably complain about hipsters, too.

I'll watch basketball, it's hard to be in Syracuse and not see some, but it doesn't carry the same interest to me. It's mostly because, unless you're really into the specifics (such as watching SU's zone destroy Indiana) you don't have to pay attention to most of the game. Either one team runs away, in which case I lose interest, as it becomes a foul shooting contest, or it's close. If it's close you only need to watch, with itensity, the last few minutes.

I enjoy hockey more because every shift could produce a goal that could be extremely important to the outcome. Therefore, I'm much more into the game. If one team is behind at the end, they pull their goalie, which is exciting. At the end there's no such thing as fouling your way to a victory.

I watch basketball, but not with the same intensity. I like having it on as background while I'm doing something else. I do the same with baseball.

Quote from: Jim HylaI watch basketball, but not with the same intensity. I like having it on as background while I'm doing something else. I do the same with baseball.

This is a little off-topic. Of course some people like some things more than other things. There is an undercurrent of "hating basketball" that runs through a lot of "liking hockey" and that's what I'm getting at. I'm not going to openly question any individual's sincerity when they say that the two are independent decisions but I will remain suspicious that you have sufficiently probed your own mind.

Quote from: ugarte

Quote from: Jim HylaI watch basketball, but not with the same intensity. I like having it on as background while I'm doing something else. I do the same with baseball.

This is a little off-topic. Of course some people like some things more than other things. There is an undercurrent of "hating basketball" that runs through a lot of "liking hockey" and that's what I'm getting at. I'm not going to openly question any individual's sincerity when they say that the two are independent decisions but I will remain suspicious that you have sufficiently probed your own mind.

Trust me, living in Syracuse, I've seen and thought a lot about basketball.

Quote from: ugarteThere is an undercurrent of "hating basketball" that runs through a lot of "liking hockey" and that's what I'm getting at.

I think many of us have zero interest, negative or otherwise, in basketball, but do hate the ubiquitous and blaring ESPN-esque coverage of it.  See also: rooting against the US Summer Olympic team.  Nobody on the planet actually cares about beach volleyball, but it's very easy to want NBC to eat pavement.

Quote from: Jim Hyla

Quote from: ugarte

Quote from: Jim HylaI watch basketball, but not with the same intensity. I like having it on as background while I'm doing something else. I do the same with baseball.

This is a little off-topic. Of course some people like some things more than other things. There is an undercurrent of "hating basketball" that runs through a lot of "liking hockey" and that's what I'm getting at. I'm not going to openly question any individual's sincerity when they say that the two are independent decisions but I will remain suspicious that you have sufficiently probed your own mind.

Trust me, living in Syracuse, I've seen and thought a lot about basketball.

I DON'T MEAN YOU! You just said that you don't dislike basketball! That's why I said your point was off-topic (as defined by my original comment).

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: ugarteThere is an undercurrent of "hating basketball" that runs through a lot of "liking hockey" and that's what I'm getting at.

I think many of us have zero interest, negative or otherwise, in basketball, but do hate the ubiquitous and blaring ESPN-esque coverage of it.  See also: rooting against the US Summer Olympic team.  Nobody on the planet actually cares about beach volleyball, but it's very easy to want NBC to eat pavement.

I could not disagree with you more. It is a fun sport to watch and the game is entertaining as well. Yes, men like to look at women in bikinis. However, because the female athletes wear bikinis girls who watch the sport actually get to see what fit women's bodies look like as opposed to the anorexic waifs they are bombarded with in the media. My wife and daughters have remarked on this a number of times.

Quote from: ugarte

Quote from: Jim HylaI watch basketball, but not with the same intensity. I like having it on as background while I'm doing something else. I do the same with baseball.

This is a little off-topic. Of course some people like some things more than other things. There is an undercurrent of "hating basketball" that runs through a lot of "liking hockey" and that's what I'm getting at. I'm not going to openly question any individual's sincerity when they say that the two are independent decisions but I will remain suspicious that you have sufficiently probed your own mind.

Guilty as charged. I don't like basketball on the merits for some of the same reasons that Jim mentions. I watched plenty of it in college when I had toommates who were diehard fans and never could get into it. But I am also annoyed by the tremendous amount of hype and coverage that the sport gets. Being something of a contrarian this makes me dislike basketball more.

I think there is definitely a culture of dislike for basketball among hockey fans (or at least college hockey). The two sports are direct competitors for eyeballs since their seasnns overlap almost completely. The tremendous amount of coverage for the NCAA tournament can be frustrating to a hockey fan who sees the relative lack of coverage for the hockey tournament (still apparent and we're now in the golden age of college hockey coverage). I know I picked up the squeakball reference from HOCKEY-L back in the day.

Quote from: Towerroad

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: ugarteThere is an undercurrent of "hating basketball" that runs through a lot of "liking hockey" and that's what I'm getting at.

I think many of us have zero interest, negative or otherwise, in basketball, but do hate the ubiquitous and blaring ESPN-esque coverage of it.  See also: rooting against the US Summer Olympic team.  Nobody on the planet actually cares about beach volleyball, but it's very easy to want NBC to eat pavement.

I could not disagree with you more. It is a fun sport to watch and the game is entertaining as well. Yes, men like to look at women in bikinis. However, because the female athletes wear bikinis girls who watch the sport actually get to see what fit women's bodies look like as opposed to the anorexic waifs they are bombarded with in the media. My wife and daughters have remarked on this a number of times.

We'll agree to disagree.  I think the women who play beach volleyball look like arachnids.  That isn't fit, it's neurotic.

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: TowerroadI could not disagree with you more. It is a fun sport to watch and the game is entertaining as well. Yes, men like to look at women in bikinis. However, because the female athletes wear bikinis girls who watch the sport actually get to see what fit women's bodies look like as opposed to the anorexic waifs they are bombarded with in the media. My wife and daughters have remarked on this a number of times.

We'll agree to disagree.  I think the women who play beach volleyball look like arachnids.  That isn't fit, it's neurotic.

You lost me at "fun sport to watch."  All fast-twitch; no strategy.

Quote from: ugarte

Quote from: Jim Hyla

Quote from: ugarte

Quote from: Jim HylaI watch basketball, but not with the same intensity. I like having it on as background while I'm doing something else. I do the same with baseball.

This is a little off-topic. Of course some people like some things more than other things. There is an undercurrent of "hating basketball" that runs through a lot of "liking hockey" and that's what I'm getting at. I'm not going to openly question any individual's sincerity when they say that the two are independent decisions but I will remain suspicious that you have sufficiently probed your own mind.

Trust me, living in Syracuse, I've seen and thought a lot about basketball.

I DON'T MEAN YOU! You just said that you don't dislike basketball! That's why I said your point was off-topic (as defined by my original comment).

Well, sorry. But I didn't say I didn't dislike basketball. I said I watch it as background. So sorry I didn't understand that I was off-topic and that the whole rest of your comment was meant for someone else. I figured since you were quoting me, you meant me with this.

QuoteI will remain suspicious that you have sufficiently probed your own mind.

Quote from: ugarte

Quote from: TimVWhat? You don't watch Big Bang Theory???::wank::

Hang a sock on the door

Quotesanc.ti.mo.ni.ous

saNG(k)te'mone ess

Adjective

Derogatory.  Making a show of being morally or ethically superior to other people

Clearly you didn't understand the intent of this:::bolt::

Try this one:  ::moon::

Quote from: SwampyIt stands to reason that as Cornell students we are introduced to new sports and, during our time on the hill, become devotees of some of them. It's natural that even naive, facetimer students are attracted to the sports in which Cornell is highly competitive. But over time, especially in a sport like hockey for which Cornell fans pride themselves for being knowledgeable, many facetimers learn about the sport and themselves become fans.

That's me. I didn't know a thing about hockey before I came to Cornell, other than that it was violent. I watched my first game entirely because it was the cool thing to do, and I fell in love with the game within about 30 seconds. Fast forward to today, I play 2-3 times a week.

Quote from: TimVClearly you didn't understand the intent of this: ::bolt::

::bolt::
unpronounceable
emoticon

Puerile, an attempt to achieve ironic distance

usage: "I am telling a sexist joke that I know to be sexist and trying to distance myself from it, unsuccessfully, because I am accidentally revealing something true about myself."

Quote from: ugarte

Quote from: TimVClearly you didn't understand the intent of this: ::bolt::

::bolt::
unpronounceable
emoticon

Puerile, an attempt to achieve ironic distance

usage: "I am telling a sexist joke that I know to be sexist and trying to distance myself from it, unsuccessfully, because I am accidentally revealing something true about myself."

This whole exchange confuses me. As far as I can tell, it went something like this:
[list=1]

• one of RPI's disadvantages as far as recruiting is a high male/female ratio
• actually, we should be looking at the male/attractive female ratio (presumably because hockey players (as most men) would prefer being with an attractive female over being with an unattractive one, ceteris paribus)
  
• attractiveness is not a relevant quality for male engineers in this century
• Big Bang Theory (despite its relative lack of classically attractive male engineers) is somehow a counter-argument to this; also, we should all wank off to it and/or it's a wank of a show
• we don't want to hear about you wanking off to Big Bang Theory
• stop being holier-than-thou
• stop being sexist (presumably, against male engineers)

This makes very, very little sense to me; far less sense, for example, than firing a coach following a bad season, which over 91% of the the participants in this thread don't think makes sense. So, what have I misread?

You're right ftyuv.  I apologize to all who took the time to read this drivel.  I thought it was harmless.  Ugarte felt like he had to call me on it.  If I didn't post it , none of this nonsense would have followed.  If Ugarte hadn't gone all Gloria Steinem, I'd still be thinking he was an occasionaly humorous guy who didn't take himself too seriously.

Quote from: TimVIf Ugarte hadn't gone all Gloria Steinem, I'd still be thinking he was an occasionaly humorous guy who didn't take himself too seriously.

I can live with these results.

Quote from: KeithK.....But I am also annoyed by the tremendous amount of hype and coverage that the sport gets. Being something of a contrarian this makes me dislike basketball more.......

That pretty much sums it up for me...   Furthermore, CBS carries much of the "March Sadness"; preempting many of the TV shows that my wife & I prefer to watch.     That adds to my hatred for NCAA squeakball.    It cannot end soon enough for me.

I don't live in Syracuse.    But, I live in upstate NY and cannot get away from Syracuse basketball.   That only makes it all worse.   I cannot imagine the pain that Jim must be feeling each year at this time.

The only consolation these days, as opposed to the early days of my CU Hockey fandom (mid-1960's), we now have reaasonal coverage of the NCAA hockey tournament.    In the 60's & 70's, it was difficult to even find out who won the damned tournament.   Even the Ithaca Joural shut down their college hockey coverage when Cornell stopped playing.   It was disgraceful and very frustrating.     Thank God for the internet!!

Quote from: rediceFurthermore, CBS carries much of the "March Sadness"; preempting many of the TV shows that my wife & I prefer to watch.

Noooo, not the Chuck Lorre sitcoms and the procedural crime dramas!

Quote from: redice

Quote from: KeithK.....But I am also annoyed by the tremendous amount of hype and coverage that the sport gets. Being something of a contrarian this makes me dislike basketball more.......

That pretty much sums it up for me...   Furthermore, CBS carries much of the "March Sadness"; preempting many of the TV shows that my wife & I prefer to watch.     That adds to my hatred for NCAA squeakball.    It cannot end soon enough for me.

I don't live in Syracuse.    But, I live in upstate NY and cannot get away from Syracuse basketball.   That only makes it all worse.   I cannot imagine the pain that Jim must be feeling each year at this time.

The only consolation these days, as opposed to the early days of my CU Hockey fandom (mid-1960's), we now have reaasonal coverage of the NCAA hockey tournament.    In the 60's & 70's, it was difficult to even find out who won the damned tournament.   Even the Ithaca Joural shut down their college hockey coverage when Cornell stopped playing.   It was disgraceful and very frustrating.     Thank God for the internet!!

That's why there was "The Intercollegiate HockeyNewsletter". Thank you Don T. Birkmayer, even if you produced it in Troy. He lives in Ithaca now.:-D

Quote from: Jim HylaThat's why there was "The Intercollegiate HockeyNewsletter". Thank you Don T. Birkmayer, even if you produced it in Troy. He lives in Ithaca now.:-D

The IHNL was the inspiration for TBRW.  I loved that old photocopied rag and wish I had a complete set from all 33 (?) years.

Quote from: rediceThe only consolation these days, as opposed to the early days of my CU Hockey fandom (mid-1960's), we now have reaasonal coverage of the NCAA hockey tournament.    In the 60's & 70's, it was difficult to even find out who won the damned tournament.

An exception to this was the Boston Globe, who did yeoman's work covering college hockey.  If the Globe ever put their archives fully online and searchable all of the missing data from the early years would be available (although, on the other hand, all of my free time would be lost for a decade).

One of the funniest parts of Globe coverage was that the order that results came in, by edition, was: (1) Boston area, (2) east and CCHA, (3) WCHA and club hockey teams from Singapore, (4) the North Country.  Like postal route maps from the 19th century, Clarkson and SLU were surrounded  by several concentric isobars and pushed them into Transylvania as far as game results.

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: rediceThe only consolation these days, as opposed to the early days of my CU Hockey fandom (mid-1960's), we now have reaasonal coverage of the NCAA hockey tournament.    In the 60's & 70's, it was difficult to even find out who won the damned tournament.

An exception to this was the Boston Globe, who did yeoman's work covering college hockey.  If the Globe ever put their archives fully online and searchable all of the missing data from the early years would be available (although, on the other hand, all of my free time would be lost for a decade).

One of the funniest parts of Globe coverage was that the order that results came in, by edition, was: (1) Boston area, (2) east and CCHA, (3) WCHA and club hockey teams from Singapore, (4) the North Country.  Like postal route maps from the 19th century, Clarkson and SLU were surrounded  by several concentric isobars and pushed them into Transylvania as far as game results.

Yeah, I used to love reading The Globe when in Boston for the ECAC's.....   But, living in small-town America, many newspapers (such as The Globe) were really hard to find here.  The local paper didn't even know how to spell the word "hockey" until professional hockey moved into town 10-12 years ago.    30 miles from Ithaca and Cornell Hockey was rarely mentioned......

I did subscribe to "The Intercollegiate HockeyNewsletter" for a while...   I think I "discovered" it at the end of its run.   I didn't realize it was around for 33 years.  Wow!!

Thanks for giving me a pass on my "reaasonal coverage" typo.....  I just noticed it....  How many ways could I butcher the word "reasonable"?

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: Jim HylaThat's why there was "The Intercollegiate HockeyNewsletter". Thank you Don T. Birkmayer, even if you produced it in Troy. He lives in Ithaca now.:-D

The IHNL was the inspiration for TBRW.  I loved that old photocopied rag and wish I had a complete set from all 33 (?) years.

1953-93 although Mr. Birkmayer didn't run it the last few years. I have a pretty complete set from late 60s on. They are also at the libraries of RPI and interestingly, UNH. I don't know anywhere else.

Quote from: BearLoverAbsolutely ridiculous overreaction to my last post.  And it's not the disagreement that bothers me; it's the trite smartass "no one can possibly be this dumb, he must be a troll" comments that twelve-year-olds go around posting on the internet.  

I never said at any point I wouldn't follow the team if they were bad.  I said I wouldn't follow them as much, and I wouldn't commit as much to them.  
Are you honestly telling me that you'd go to exactly as many games and post on this forum exactly as much and sit through exactly as many Redcast broadcasts if Cornell were .400 instead of .650?  Do you honestly think nearly as many people would pack Lynah in the first place if Cornell hadn't won so much in the past?  You're delusional if you think so.  I'm not travelling 8 hours to watch a shitty team play, I'll tell you that much, and I doubt there are many here who would.  I'm never going to stop following Cornell hockey, but I am sure as hell not putting in as much effort as when they are actually good.  

Who here followed women's hockey until they got good these past four seasons?  5% of who follow them now?  What a bunch of hypocrites.

I've had season tickets since 1988, and when I was living in Ithaca, I attended every game I was physically able to attend - home and away - including the 1992-93 and 1993-94 horrorshow seasons. I still renew my season tickets every year despite living in New York City since 2000, and I attend when I can, though it has gotten increasingly difficult. But that doesn't really answer the question you're asking, which is whether all people behave the way I behave or the way I think they "should" behave, and the answer to that is obviously "no." There have been stretches in Cornell hockey history when there were pretty significant holes in the stands, and I'm not at all surprised that fewer people attend when the team isn't as good - but I absolutely stand by my opinion that those who failed to show up weren't really "Cornell hockey" fans, they were just "Cornell hockey winning" fans. And I absolutely stand by my opinion that one of those types of fan is better than the other.

Also, I was doing radio color commentary for the women's hockey team at a time when adding a color commentator was often the difference in having a minyan in the building.

Maybe I'm just not as efficient as you are when it comes to investing my sports fandom hours, or something.

Or maybe I just know that sticking with something I care about through tough times will make the triumphs all the more sweet for having reached them.

Viewing the abuse being heaped on Our Fair Conference on the USCHO threads, perhaps we should all make peace and present a united front.

We are all Lynah Faithful.  Those of us who stress the positives are not mindless cheerleaders, and those of us who stress the negatives are not facetimers or trolls.  There are, in the grand scheme of things, precious few of us, and we cannot afford internal purges over who is the better fan.

+++    I agree.

Quote from: TrotskyViewing the abuse being heaped on Our Fair Conference on the USCHO threads, perhaps we should all make peace and present a united front.

We are all Lynah Faithful.  Those of us who stress the positives are not mindless cheerleaders, and those of us who stress the negatives are not facetimers or trolls.  There are, in the grand scheme of things, precious few of us, and we cannot afford internal purges over who is the better fan.

LGR!

Bringing this back on topic (but at risk of breaking the united front), as I watch George Gwozdecky's press conference (http://www.denverpioneers.com//mediaPortal/player.dbml?&id=579984&catid=0&KEY=&DB_OEM_ID=18600&utm_source=internal&utm_medium=rotator&utm_campaign=lerotator), I am further convinced of the inanity of firing Mike Schafer. Unrealistic expectations yield atrocious decisions.

Quote from: cbuckserBringing this back on topic (but at risk of breaking the united front), as I watch George Gwozdecky's press conference (http://www.denverpioneers.com//mediaPortal/player.dbml?&id=579984&catid=0&KEY=&DB_OEM_ID=18600&utm_source=internal&utm_medium=rotator&utm_campaign=lerotator), I am further convinced of the inanity of firing Mike Schafer. Unrealistic expectations yield atrocious decisions.

I'm actually on the Fire Schafer, hire Gwozdecky bandwagon. I wouldn't fire Schafer without a coach I thought of as an an improvement, but lo and behold...

Prediction based on nothing except a feeling that it makes sense is that Denver brings back Appert and RPI calls Gwozdecky.

Quote from: cbuckserBringing this back on topic (but at risk of breaking the united front), as I watch George Gwozdecky's press conference (http://www.denverpioneers.com//mediaPortal/player.dbml?&id=579984&catid=0&KEY=&DB_OEM_ID=18600&utm_source=internal&utm_medium=rotator&utm_campaign=lerotator), I am further convinced of the inanity of firing Mike Schafer. Unrealistic expectations yield atrocious decisions.

Absolutely stunning.  The program had been at best mediocre since Armstrong until Gwozdecky came aboard.  In his first year, they made the tourney after a nine-year absence; later on, they won two national championships; for the past few years, the team has been performing at the kind of level that most ADs would probably dream about, the NCAA disappointments notwithstanding.  Honestly, the only comparables would be Michigan firing Berenson, or Minnesota firing Lucia after keeping Wooger on for so many years.

Come to think of it, why did BU keep that Parker guy around for so long?  What an idiot he was.  Not enough Natties!

Quote from: Scersk '97

Quote from: cbuckserBringing this back on topic (but at risk of breaking the united front), as I watch George Gwozdecky's press conference (http://www.denverpioneers.com//mediaPortal/player.dbml?&id=579984&catid=0&KEY=&DB_OEM_ID=18600&utm_source=internal&utm_medium=rotator&utm_campaign=lerotator), I am further convinced of the inanity of firing Mike Schafer. Unrealistic expectations yield atrocious decisions.

Absolutely stunning.  The program had been at best mediocre since Armstrong until Gwozdecky came aboard.  In his first year, they made the tourney after a nine-year absence; later on, they won two national championships; for the past few years, the team has been performing at the kind of level that most ADs would probably dream about, the NCAA disappointments notwithstanding.  Honestly, the only comparables would be Michigan firing Berenson, or Minnesota firing Lucia after keeping Wooger on for so many years.

Come to think of it, why did BU keep that Parker guy around for so long?  What an idiot he was.  Not enough Natties!

Isn't losing to Yale, from the EZAC, a firable offense?  ::bolt::

Quote from: css228

Quote from: cbuckserBringing this back on topic (but at risk of breaking the united front), as I watch George Gwozdecky's press conference (http://www.denverpioneers.com//mediaPortal/player.dbml?&id=579984&catid=0&KEY=&DB_OEM_ID=18600&utm_source=internal&utm_medium=rotator&utm_campaign=lerotator), I am further convinced of the inanity of firing Mike Schafer. Unrealistic expectations yield atrocious decisions.

I'm actually on the Fire Schafer, hire Gwozdecky bandwagon. I wouldn't fire Schafer without a coach I thought of as an an improvement, but lo and behold...

What makes you think he can or is willing to try and recruit the different type of student we get at CU vs DU? That is always the problem that I see. I think it's far easier to go from non-scholarship school to scholarship factory, than the other way around.

Quote from: css228

Quote from: cbuckserBringing this back on topic (but at risk of breaking the united front), as I watch George Gwozdecky's press conference (http://www.denverpioneers.com//mediaPortal/player.dbml?&id=579984&catid=0&KEY=&DB_OEM_ID=18600&utm_source=internal&utm_medium=rotator&utm_campaign=lerotator), I am further convinced of the inanity of firing Mike Schafer. Unrealistic expectations yield atrocious decisions.

I'm actually on the Fire Schafer, hire Gwozdecky bandwagon. I wouldn't fire Schafer without a coach I thought of as an an improvement, but lo and behold...

Why would Gwozdecky want to caoch at Cornell?  He has no connection to the school. He's never coached in a no-scholarship, high academic requirements environment. Why would you think he'd want to take on that challenge?

He's also 59 years old.  So he's not likely to be a guy who would stick around for a generation.

Not to mention that Denver has pretty much played a similar defense first style of hockey.  Why would you think Gwoz would be so much more successful at Cornell, given the constraints we have to work with?

Quote from: Scersk '97

Quote from: cbuckserBringing this back on topic (but at risk of breaking the united front), as I watch George Gwozdecky's press conference (http://www.denverpioneers.com//mediaPortal/player.dbml?&id=579984&catid=0&KEY=&DB_OEM_ID=18600&utm_source=internal&utm_medium=rotator&utm_campaign=lerotator), I am further convinced of the inanity of firing Mike Schafer. Unrealistic expectations yield atrocious decisions.

Absolutely stunning.  The program had been at best mediocre since Armstrong until Gwozdecky came aboard.  In his first year, they made the tourney after a nine-year absence; later on, they won two national championships; for the past few years, the team has been performing at the kind of level that most ADs would probably dream about, the NCAA disappointments notwithstanding.  Honestly, the only comparables would be Michigan firing Berenson, or Minnesota firing Lucia after keeping Wooger on for so many years.

Come to think of it, why did BU keep that Parker guy around for so long?  What an idiot he was.  Not enough Natties!

There is speculation (though maybe just by people grasping for an explanation) that a dispute over Gwozdecky's salary was involved.  Take secondhand speculation for what it's worth, though, of course.

Quote from: KeithK

Quote from: css228

Quote from: cbuckserBringing this back on topic (but at risk of breaking the united front), as I watch George Gwozdecky's press conference (http://www.denverpioneers.com//mediaPortal/player.dbml?&id=579984&catid=0&KEY=&DB_OEM_ID=18600&utm_source=internal&utm_medium=rotator&utm_campaign=lerotator), I am further convinced of the inanity of firing Mike Schafer. Unrealistic expectations yield atrocious decisions.

I'm actually on the Fire Schafer, hire Gwozdecky bandwagon. I wouldn't fire Schafer without a coach I thought of as an an improvement, but lo and behold...

Why would Gwozdecky want to caoch at Cornell?  He has no connection to the school. He's never coached in a no-scholarship, high academic requirements environment. Why would you think he'd want to take on that challenge?

He's also 59 years old.  So he's not likely to be a guy who would stick around for a generation.

Not to mention that Denver has pretty much played a similar defense first style of hockey.  Why would you think Gwoz would be so much more successful at Cornell, given the constraints we have to work with?

I beat you, I beat you....:-DYou did elaborate however.:-}

Quote from: Jim Hyla

Quote from: css228

Quote from: cbuckserBringing this back on topic (but at risk of breaking the united front), as I watch George Gwozdecky's press conference (http://www.denverpioneers.com//mediaPortal/player.dbml?&id=579984&catid=0&KEY=&DB_OEM_ID=18600&utm_source=internal&utm_medium=rotator&utm_campaign=lerotator), I am further convinced of the inanity of firing Mike Schafer. Unrealistic expectations yield atrocious decisions.

I'm actually on the Fire Schafer, hire Gwozdecky bandwagon. I wouldn't fire Schafer without a coach I thought of as an an improvement, but lo and behold...

What makes you think he can or is willing to try and recruit the different type of student we get at CU vs DU? That is always the problem that I see. I think it's far easier to go from non-scholarship school to scholarship factory, than the other way around.

Willing to try that's easy. He's unemployed and he's said he wants to continue to coach. Two who's the best player Schafer has produced? Murray? Easiy take Matt Carle over that.

Tangent:  I find it unnecessarily confusing that there's both a George Gwozdecky and a Guy Gadowsky.

Of course you would.  But, Douglas was drafted in the 8th round of the NHL draft and Matt was taken in the 2nd round.  Also, we have no way of knowing if Matt Carle could even have met the academic standards at Cornell.  Gwozdecky doesn't get to just turn Cornell into Denver, as several other people have said.

Quote from: css228Two who's the best player Schafer has produced? Murray? Easiy take Matt Carle over that.

I might go with Matt Moulson now. I never would have thought that in 2006. And despite eyebrow power, it pains me to say this because he's on the freakin' *Islanders*.

Sigh. At least he doesn't play for the Devils.

Quote from: Kyle Rose

Quote from: css228Two who's the best player Schafer has produced? Murray? Easiy take Matt Carle over that.

I might go with Matt Moulson now. I never would have thought that in 2006. And despite eyebrow power, it pains me to say this because he's on the freakin' *Islanders*.

Sigh. At least he doesn't play for the Devils.

Still would take a legitimate top pair defenseman over Matt Moulson, who's just lucky he plays on a line with Taveres.

Quote from: css228

Quote from: Kyle Rose

Quote from: css228Two who's the best player Schafer has produced? Murray? Easiy take Matt Carle over that.

I might go with Matt Moulson now. I never would have thought that in 2006. And despite eyebrow power, it pains me to say this because he's on the freakin' *Islanders*.

Sigh. At least he doesn't play for the Devils.

Still would take a legitimate top pair defenseman over Matt Moulson, who's just lucky he plays on a line with Taveres.

I love Murray, but I think calling him a top pair defenseman is maybe a bit generous.

Quote from: css228

Quote from: cbuckserBringing this back on topic (but at risk of breaking the united front), as I watch George Gwozdecky's press conference (http://www.denverpioneers.com//mediaPortal/player.dbml?&id=579984&catid=0&KEY=&DB_OEM_ID=18600&utm_source=internal&utm_medium=rotator&utm_campaign=lerotator), I am further convinced of the inanity of firing Mike Schafer. Unrealistic expectations yield atrocious decisions.

I'm actually on the Fire Schafer, hire Gwozdecky bandwagon. I wouldn't fire Schafer without a coach I thought of as an an improvement, but lo and behold...

For my money, UConn might be the best fit. They don't have a coach, he gets a year to get his ducks in a row, then rolls on to HEA with low expectations. They will throw money at him to make a splash in HEA and don't have academic constraints like Harvard or to a lesser extent RPI. And Connecticut is the new hub of college hockey apparently.

Quote from: Josh '99Tangent:  I find it unnecessarily confusing that there's both a George Gwozdecky and a Guy Gadowsky.

This!

Quote from: Josh '99

Quote from: css228

Quote from: Kyle Rose

Quote from: css228Two who's the best player Schafer has produced? Murray? Easiy take Matt Carle over that.

I might go with Matt Moulson now. I never would have thought that in 2006. And despite eyebrow power, it pains me to say this because he's on the freakin' *Islanders*.

Sigh. At least he doesn't play for the Devils.

Still would take a legitimate top pair defenseman over Matt Moulson, who's just lucky he plays on a line with Taveres.

I love Murray, but I think calling him a top pair defenseman is maybe a bit generous.

Talking about Carle, not Murray.

Quote from: css228

Quote from: Josh '99

Quote from: css228

Quote from: Kyle Rose

Quote from: css228Two who's the best player Schafer has produced? Murray? Easiy take Matt Carle over that.

I might go with Matt Moulson now. I never would have thought that in 2006. And despite eyebrow power, it pains me to say this because he's on the freakin' *Islanders*.

Sigh. At least he doesn't play for the Devils.

Still would take a legitimate top pair defenseman over Matt Moulson, who's just lucky he plays on a line with Taveres.

I love Murray, but I think calling him a top pair defenseman is maybe a bit generous.

Talking about Carle, not Murray.

Oops, misunderstood.  Sorry about that.

Quote from: Chris '03

Quote from: css228

Quote from: cbuckserBringing this back on topic (but at risk of breaking the united front), as I watch George Gwozdecky's press conference (http://www.denverpioneers.com//mediaPortal/player.dbml?&id=579984&catid=0&KEY=&DB_OEM_ID=18600&utm_source=internal&utm_medium=rotator&utm_campaign=lerotator), I am further convinced of the inanity of firing Mike Schafer. Unrealistic expectations yield atrocious decisions.

I'm actually on the Fire Schafer, hire Gwozdecky bandwagon. I wouldn't fire Schafer without a coach I thought of as an an improvement, but lo and behold...

For my money, UConn might be the best fit. They don't have a coach, he gets a year to get his ducks in a row, then rolls on to HEA with low expectations. They will throw money at him to make a splash in HEA and don't have academic constraints like Harvard or to a lesser extent RPI. And Connecticut is the new hub of college hockey apparently.

I'd be sorry if I didn't post this granade that cause a flurry of activity today:

https://twitter.com/CHN_AdamWodon/status/319139662935490560

Crap. I reeeeeally hope not.

Also, I was about to say "go to Penn State, it's a scholarship school with money that you can turn into a big-time program."

Then I went to find out who their coach was.

Awesome.

"George Gwozdecky replaces Guy Gadowsky; Penn State Players Participate in Press Conference at Pegula Ice Arena"

Put me down for he should stay, FWIW.  ;)

Colgate would be a decent fit for Gwozdecky, if Don Vaughan is getting tired.  But consider this: Vaughan, who has been around seemingly forever, is younger than Gwozdecky.

This is not a guy to build a new program; it's a guy who might be able to take a program one last step, before retiring after a few years.

Quote from: TrotskyColgate would be a decent fit for Gwozdecky, if Don Vaughan is getting tired.  But consider this: Vaughan, who has been around seemingly forever, is younger than Gwozdecky.

This is not a guy to build a new program; it's a guy who might be able to take a program one last step, before retiring after a few years.

This post is a couple days late . Today's the third.

Quote from: marty

Quote from: TrotskyColgate would be a decent fit for Gwozdecky, if Don Vaughan is getting tired.  But consider this: Vaughan, who has been around seemingly forever, is younger than Gwozdecky.

This is not a guy to build a new program; it's a guy who might be able to take a program one last step, before retiring after a few years.

This post is a couple days late . Today's the third.

?

(Oh, you probably mean the contradiction between the two paragraphs.  :)  Well, yeah, they were two distinct thoughts that probably didn't belong in the same post.)

Quote from: css228Willing to try that's easy. He's unemployed and he's said he wants to continue to coach. Two who's the best player Schafer has produced? Murray? Easiy take Matt Carle over that.

Best college player during his tenure, probably, unless you want to pick Lenny.  But I think that Greening and Moulson will go down as better pros.

Murray's teammates seem to love him and think he makes a great contribution.  I think oddly enough we may underestimate his impact in the pros, like many underestimated Manderville, because from a star in college he went to a role player in the NHL.  But I think his tenure speaks volumes -- most pro careers only last a couple years.

I'm gonna give my usual short answer to this question, when it comes up each year ... and sorry if this offends anyone, but I really don't think it deserves anything more than this ...

--> If you think Mike Schafer should be fired, you are a complete idiot

I am pleased to see that the best, most eloquent, replies on this thread come from the people I personally know :) - They have a lot more patience than I have for this line of thinking.

Since it directly applies, here is the commentary I just wrote on the Gwozdecky firing:
http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2013/04/03_rocky_mountain_low.php

Otherwise, the tangents in which this thread went on, are interesting. As an Islanders fans, I must stick up for the notion that you don't have to attend every game, watch every game, and/or have season tickets to be considered a "true fan." I hate that kind of thinking. I care about the Islanders deeply, all the time. But whether it's the Islanders or any of the other crappy teams that I love -- if they are miserable, I can't justify paying all that money to attend games, or invest time that I could be spending with my kids or significant other doing any number of other things. In fact, particularly in pro sports, I think it sends a very bad message to ownership when people continue to show up to games win or lose. See: Chicago Cubs. There is no incentive for those teams to improve.

The Islanders have been miserable for 20 years. I defend the fact that their attendance is lousy. The forthcoming jokes from Josh notwithstanding, there are a lot of Islanders fans. When they've had even a little success over the last 20 years, the building was packed and loud. They are out there. And I don't blame them one bit for being fed up with how that franchise has been for 20 years. A complete joke in many ways - hopefully soon to be on the rebound.

That said - there are, obviously, also people who are band-wagoners and only care when a team wins. I loathe them. That's a different story - but the only way to distinguish between the two is to talk to them, not necessarily by whether they attend a game or not.

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: marty

Quote from: TrotskyColgate would be a decent fit for Gwozdecky, if Don Vaughan is getting tired.  But consider this: Vaughan, who has been around seemingly forever, is younger than Gwozdecky.

This is not a guy to build a new program; it's a guy who might be able to take a program one last step, before retiring after a few years.

This post is a couple days late . Today's the third.

?

(Oh, you probably mean the contradiction between the two paragraphs.  :)  Well, yeah, they were two distinct thoughts that probably didn't belong in the same post.)

I meant it would have been more appropriate on April 1. I don't see Gwozdecky in Hamilton, NY.

Quote from: marty

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: marty

Quote from: TrotskyColgate would be a decent fit for Gwozdecky, if Don Vaughan is getting tired.  But consider this: Vaughan, who has been around seemingly forever, is younger than Gwozdecky.

This is not a guy to build a new program; it's a guy who might be able to take a program one last step, before retiring after a few years.

This post is a couple days late . Today's the third.

?

(Oh, you probably mean the contradiction between the two paragraphs.  :)  Well, yeah, they were two distinct thoughts that probably didn't belong in the same post.)

I meant it would have been more appropriate on April 1. I don't see Gwozdecky in Hamilton, NY.

Would you care to elaborate?

Quote from: adamwSince it directly applies, here is the commentary I just wrote on the Gwozdecky firing:
http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2013/04/03_rocky_mountain_low.php

My favorite bit from your piece: "But the cutthroat, winning-is-the-only thing mentality has infiltrated college hockey as it has other big-time college sports." The older I get the more I understand that winning is fun but it's the journey that makes sports fun.

Quote from: KeithK

Quote from: adamwSince it directly applies, here is the commentary I just wrote on the Gwozdecky firing:
http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2013/04/03_rocky_mountain_low.php

My favorite bit from your piece: "But the cutthroat, winning-is-the-only thing mentality has infiltrated college hockey as it has other big-time college sports." The older I get the more I understand that winning is fun but it's the journey that makes sports fun.

Are we paying coaches for journeys? If so, Schafer had better be leading Senior Week rafting trips.

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: marty

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: marty

Quote from: TrotskyColgate would be a decent fit for Gwozdecky, if Don Vaughan is getting tired.  But consider this: Vaughan, who has been around seemingly forever, is younger than Gwozdecky.

This is not a guy to build a new program; it's a guy who might be able to take a program one last step, before retiring after a few years.

This post is a couple days late . Today's the third.

?

(Oh, you probably mean the contradiction between the two paragraphs.  :)  Well, yeah, they were two distinct thoughts that probably didn't belong in the same post.)

I meant it would have been more appropriate on April 1. I don't see Gwozdecky in Hamilton, NY.

Would you care to elaborate?

Sorry, just a bad joke I guess on my part, but it would seem like an April fools joke to see him in Starr.

Quote from: adamwThe Islanders have been miserable for 20 years. I defend the fact that their attendance is lousy. The forthcoming jokes from Josh notwithstanding, there are a lot of Islanders fans.

... said 1985.

(OK, it's not great, but it's tough when you're put on the spot like that!)

Quote from: Josh '99

Quote from: adamwThe Islanders have been miserable for 20 years. I defend the fact that their attendance is lousy. The forthcoming jokes from Josh notwithstanding, there are a lot of Islanders fans.

... said 1985.

(OK, it's not great, but it's tough when you're put on the spot like that!)

I expected at least one Mausoleum reference.  Traid!  :-(

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: Josh '99

Quote from: adamwThe Islanders have been miserable for 20 years. I defend the fact that their attendance is lousy. The forthcoming jokes from Josh notwithstanding, there are a lot of Islanders fans.

... said 1985.

(OK, it's not great, but it's tough when you're put on the spot like that!)

I expected at least one Mausoleum reference.  Traid!  :-(

To their credit, they are actually remedying that.  Leaving Nassau County: not just for the cool kids anymore!

Quote from: Josh '99

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: Josh '99

Quote from: adamwThe Islanders have been miserable for 20 years. I defend the fact that their attendance is lousy. The forthcoming jokes from Josh notwithstanding, there are a lot of Islanders fans.

... said 1985.

(OK, it's not great, but it's tough when you're put on the spot like that!)

I expected at least one Mausoleum reference.  Traid!  :-(

To their credit, they are actually remedying that.  Leaving Nassau County: not just for the cool kids anymore!

I like that the map on our crest does not reach far enough west to show the location of the new building.  It's part of our strategy to confuse the opposition.

Quote from: Josh '99

Quote from: adamwThe Islanders have been miserable for 20 years. I defend the fact that their attendance is lousy. The forthcoming jokes from Josh notwithstanding, there are a lot of Islanders fans.

... said 1985.

(OK, it's not great, but it's tough when you're put on the spot like that!)

20 sellouts in 2002 - only time in the last 20 years they had an actual decent team

Quote from: adamw

Quote from: Josh '99

Quote from: adamwThe Islanders have been miserable for 20 years. I defend the fact that their attendance is lousy. The forthcoming jokes from Josh notwithstanding, there are a lot of Islanders fans.

... said 1985.

(OK, it's not great, but it's tough when you're put on the spot like that!)

20 sellouts in 2002 - only time in the last 20 years they had an actual decent team

We were decent in 2007, too.  40-42 ignoring Bettman Bullshit, just 2 games worse than 2002.  Gotta go all the way back to 1993 and real records (40-37-7) for the next glimmer.

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: adamw

Quote from: Josh '99

Quote from: adamwThe Islanders have been miserable for 20 years. I defend the fact that their attendance is lousy. The forthcoming jokes from Josh notwithstanding, there are a lot of Islanders fans.

... said 1985.

(OK, it's not great, but it's tough when you're put on the spot like that!)

20 sellouts in 2002 - only time in the last 20 years they had an actual decent team

We were decent in 2007, too.  40-42 ignoring Bettman Bullshit, just 2 games worse than 2002.  Gotta go all the way back to 1993 and real records (40-37-7) for the next glimmer.

40-42 and an 8 seed is not what I meant by decent .... they snuck in the playoffs in 2003 and 2004 too, which were equally useless years. But yeah.

Quote from: adamw

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: adamw

Quote from: Josh '99

Quote from: adamwThe Islanders have been miserable for 20 years. I defend the fact that their attendance is lousy. The forthcoming jokes from Josh notwithstanding, there are a lot of Islanders fans.

... said 1985.

(OK, it's not great, but it's tough when you're put on the spot like that!)

20 sellouts in 2002 - only time in the last 20 years they had an actual decent team

We were decent in 2007, too.  40-42 ignoring Bettman Bullshit, just 2 games worse than 2002.  Gotta go all the way back to 1993 and real records (40-37-7) for the next glimmer.

40-42 and an 8 seed is not what I meant by decent .... they snuck in the playoffs in 2003 and 2004 too, which were equally useless years. But yeah.

It seemed decent at the time.  Relative deprivation -- Marx was right.  (Don't tell Keith.)

Quote from: Ben

Quote from: KeithK

Quote from: adamwSince it directly applies, here is the commentary I just wrote on the Gwozdecky firing:
http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2013/04/03_rocky_mountain_low.php

My favorite bit from your piece: "But the cutthroat, winning-is-the-only thing mentality has infiltrated college hockey as it has other big-time college sports." The older I get the more I understand that winning is fun but it's the journey that makes sports fun.

Are we paying coaches for journeys? If so, Schafer had better be leading Senior Week rafting trips.

Actually, Cornell does pay coaches for things other than wins and championships. Historically, the AD has been willing to keep coaches with frankly terrible records around provided they were under contract and running the program the right way. In light of this, think about the facts of Schafer's current position:

1) Whatever the naysayers claim, his record is incredible. Cornell has been the class of the ECAC and Ivy League for most of the last 15 years, and has been nationally competitive at a level of consistency few teams achieve. That's a hell of an accomplishment from a W/L perspective. Even if you only consider 5 year windows, Cornell was pretty damn good prior to this season, and only an eyelash behind Yale and Union in terms of overall record and post-season accomplishments in the 5 years ending in 2012. The team is quite a bit further behind Yale and Union over the 5 seasons ending in 2013, but this amounts to 1 rebuilding year and 1 bad season (and this was a bad season - let's not sugar-coat it). That's hardly the sign of a massive decline. Even in the go go years of the 70s Cornell wasn't *always* the best - or even the second-best - team in the league. Not over a 10-15 year window.

2) Under Schafer's watch this team has had more news about humanitarian and senior CLASS award finalists than even minor scandals regarding off-ice behavior. That doesn't mean these guys are all angels, but it's at least a sign of a clean, disciplined program. If that trend continues, and assuming Schafer still enforces class attendance and academic performance the way he used to, it'll take more than a couple of .500 seasons for the AD to make a change.

3) According to something I read around here Schafer has ~4 years left on his contract. Given points 1 and 2 Cornell would be insane to fire him during that term. Even if this year is finally the start of the kind of decline the "Fire Schafer" crowd has been carping about around here for the past 6 years, they won't fire him. They'll simply decide to part ways at the end of the contract term, and split as amicably as possible.

Barring a major scandal, Schafer isn't getting fired any time soon. At this stage I think I have sufficient perspective to realize that this is as it should be. Feel free to disagree and focus solely on the record in these conversations, but remember - Cornell athletics is, at least to all appearances, about more than just winning.

Quote from: adamwI'm gonna give my usual short answer to this question, when it comes up each year ... and sorry if this offends anyone, but I really don't think it deserves anything more than this ...

--> If you think Mike Schafer should be fired, you are a complete idiot

Damn you, Adam!!    I hate it when you beat around the bush!!    ;-)

I am not on the "Fire Schafer" side of things.   Yes, I am disappointed each year when they are eliminated and fall short of an NCAA title.    But, under Schafer, each year begins with real hope that a title is within reach THAT SEASON!!    That's good enough for me.     I can recall some of the pre-Schafer teams where there was no hope.   That's when it's time to change coaches!

One other thing to keep in mind ... high turnover of assistants. Cornell is still regrouping after losing Brent Brekke, Jamie Russell, Scott Garrow and Casey Jones in short order. New guys are less experienced, or at least less experienced in Cornell's ways.

Quote from: redice

Quote from: adamwI'm gonna give my usual short answer to this question, when it comes up each year ... and sorry if this offends anyone, but I really don't think it deserves anything more than this ...

--> If you think Mike Schafer should be fired, you are a complete idiot

Damn you, Adam!!    I hate it when you beat around the bush!!    ;-)

One of my favorite things about this forum is no matter how blunt I am there's always somebody who makes me look tactful.

Quote from: adamwOne other thing to keep in mind ... high turnover of assistants. Cornell is still regrouping after losing Brent Brekke, Jamie Russell, Scott Garrow and Casey Jones in short order. New guys are less experienced, or at least less experienced in Cornell's ways.

While it could matter, it's been two years (http://www.tbrw.info/?/coaches/cornell_Assistant_Coaches.html).  If the change in assistants had a lot to do with it, it probably would have shown up last year.

We may have "escaped" a big discontinuity because the arrival of the new guys coincided with the arrival of a big class.

I found the seniors' lack of leadership... disturbing.  That may have just been the mix of personalities, or you may have hit it with a disagreement between the assistant coaching style of the first two years and the latter two.  If so, then we should expect an improvement since 5 of the net 6 returning years of all classes (seniors' 3, juniors' 2, etc...) will now have been spent under the same staff.

Quote from: Tom Lento

Quote from: BenAre we paying coaches for journeys? If so, Schafer had better be leading Senior Week rafting trips.

Actually, Cornell does pay coaches for things other than wins and championships. Historically, the AD has been willing to keep coaches with frankly terrible records around provided they were under contract and running the program the right way. In light of this, think about the facts of Schafer's current position:

1) Whatever the naysayers claim, his record is incredible. Cornell has been the class of the ECAC and Ivy League for most of the last 15 years, and has been nationally competitive at a level of consistency few teams achieve. That's a hell of an accomplishment from a W/L perspective. Even if you only consider 5 year windows, Cornell was pretty damn good prior to this season, and only an eyelash behind Yale and Union in terms of overall record and post-season accomplishments in the 5 years ending in 2012. The team is quite a bit further behind Yale and Union over the 5 seasons ending in 2013, but this amounts to 1 rebuilding year and 1 bad season (and this was a bad season - let's not sugar-coat it). That's hardly the sign of a massive decline. Even in the go go years of the 70s Cornell wasn't *always* the best - or even the second-best - team in the league. Not over a 10-15 year window.

2) Under Schafer's watch this team has had more news about humanitarian and senior CLASS award finalists than even minor scandals regarding off-ice behavior. That doesn't mean these guys are all angels, but it's at least a sign of a clean, disciplined program. If that trend continues, and assuming Schafer still enforces class attendance and academic performance the way he used to, it'll take more than a couple of .500 seasons for the AD to make a change.

3) According to something I read around here Schafer has ~4 years left on his contract. Given points 1 and 2 Cornell would be insane to fire him during that term. Even if this year is finally the start of the kind of decline the "Fire Schafer" crowd has been carping about around here for the past 6 years, they won't fire him. They'll simply decide to part ways at the end of the contract term, and split as amicably as possible.

Barring a major scandal, Schafer isn't getting fired any time soon. At this stage I think I have sufficient perspective to realize that this is as it should be. Feel free to disagree and focus solely on the record in these conversations, but remember - Cornell athletics is, at least to all appearances, about more than just winning.

That's not the point. Coaches are not paid for a "journey." They are paid to win games and titles. They are also representatives of the university/team/club and have obligations to represent that entity in a responsible way. This is not a comment on whether or not Schafer should be behind the bench in October, I addressed that on the first page of this thread. It's about how coaches are evaluated. If you want to talk about how coaches ought to be evaluated, that is a different discussion.

Quote from: BenThat's not the point. Coaches are not paid for a "journey." They are paid to win games and titles. They are also representatives of the university/team/club and have obligations to represent that entity in a responsible way. This is not a comment on whether or not Schafer should be behind the bench in October, I addressed that on the first page of this thread. It's about how coaches are evaluated. If you want to talk about how coaches ought to be evaluated, that is a different discussion.

The "journey" bit was a reference to how fans should approach watching sports.  It's related to how programs/coaches should be viewed, since ultimately fan interest drives the commercial success of teams, but not the same.  Poor juxtaposition on my point. (A paragraph break might have helped.)

Quote from: Ben

Quote from: KeithK

Quote from: adamwSince it directly applies, here is the commentary I just wrote on the Gwozdecky firing:
http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2013/04/03_rocky_mountain_low.php

My favorite bit from your piece: "But the cutthroat, winning-is-the-only thing mentality has infiltrated college hockey as it has other big-time college sports." The older I get the more I understand that winning is fun but it's the journey that makes sports fun.

Are we paying coaches for journeys? If so, Schafer had better be leading Senior Week rafting trips.

I do give Ben points for the comeback. It is an interesting image. :)

Quote from: KeithK

Quote from: BenThat's not the point. Coaches are not paid for a "journey." They are paid to win games and titles. They are also representatives of the university/team/club and have obligations to represent that entity in a responsible way. This is not a comment on whether or not Schafer should be behind the bench in October, I addressed that on the first page of this thread. It's about how coaches are evaluated. If you want to talk about how coaches ought to be evaluated, that is a different discussion.

The "journey" bit was a reference to how fans should approach watching sports.  It's related to how programs/coaches should be viewed, since ultimately fan interest drives the commercial success of teams, but not the same.  Poor juxtaposition on my point. (A paragraph break might have helped.)

I agree on our side of the boards, but in terms of the way in which results are achieved, I'm reminded of something De Gaulle wrote:

QuoteThe result having been attained, everything that had preceded it and led to it was proclaimed glorious and reasonable.

As a fan, it's great to see your team win a game coming back from 3-0 down, but an excellent coach makes sure his team doesn't have to dig themselves out of that hole.

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: adamw

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: adamw

Quote from: Josh '99

Quote from: adamwThe Islanders have been miserable for 20 years. I defend the fact that their attendance is lousy. The forthcoming jokes from Josh notwithstanding, there are a lot of Islanders fans.

... said 1985.

(OK, it's not great, but it's tough when you're put on the spot like that!)

20 sellouts in 2002 - only time in the last 20 years they had an actual decent team

We were decent in 2007, too.  40-42 ignoring Bettman Bullshit, just 2 games worse than 2002.  Gotta go all the way back to 1993 and real records (40-37-7) for the next glimmer.

40-42 and an 8 seed is not what I meant by decent .... they snuck in the playoffs in 2003 and 2004 too, which were equally useless years. But yeah.

It seemed decent at the time.  Relative deprivation -- Marx was right.  (Don't tell Keith.)

Maybe this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4UB2ImTqAk) will help. And the Islanders have a chance to pull off something similar 20 years later.

Quote from: Ben

Quote from: Tom Lento

Quote from: BenAre we paying coaches for journeys? If so, Schafer had better be leading Senior Week rafting trips.

Actually, Cornell does pay coaches for things other than wins and championships. Historically, the AD has been willing to keep coaches with frankly terrible records around provided they were under contract and running the program the right way. In light of this, think about the facts of Schafer's current position:

1) Whatever the naysayers claim, his record is incredible. Cornell has been the class of the ECAC and Ivy League for most of the last 15 years, and has been nationally competitive at a level of consistency few teams achieve. That's a hell of an accomplishment from a W/L perspective. Even if you only consider 5 year windows, Cornell was pretty damn good prior to this season, and only an eyelash behind Yale and Union in terms of overall record and post-season accomplishments in the 5 years ending in 2012. The team is quite a bit further behind Yale and Union over the 5 seasons ending in 2013, but this amounts to 1 rebuilding year and 1 bad season (and this was a bad season - let's not sugar-coat it). That's hardly the sign of a massive decline. Even in the go go years of the 70s Cornell wasn't *always* the best - or even the second-best - team in the league. Not over a 10-15 year window.

2) Under Schafer's watch this team has had more news about humanitarian and senior CLASS award finalists than even minor scandals regarding off-ice behavior. That doesn't mean these guys are all angels, but it's at least a sign of a clean, disciplined program. If that trend continues, and assuming Schafer still enforces class attendance and academic performance the way he used to, it'll take more than a couple of .500 seasons for the AD to make a change.

3) According to something I read around here Schafer has ~4 years left on his contract. Given points 1 and 2 Cornell would be insane to fire him during that term. Even if this year is finally the start of the kind of decline the "Fire Schafer" crowd has been carping about around here for the past 6 years, they won't fire him. They'll simply decide to part ways at the end of the contract term, and split as amicably as possible.

Barring a major scandal, Schafer isn't getting fired any time soon. At this stage I think I have sufficient perspective to realize that this is as it should be. Feel free to disagree and focus solely on the record in these conversations, but remember - Cornell athletics is, at least to all appearances, about more than just winning.

That's not the point. Coaches are not paid for a "journey." They are paid to win games and titles. They are also representatives of the university/team/club and have obligations to represent that entity in a responsible way. This is not a comment on whether or not Schafer should be behind the bench in October, I addressed that on the first page of this thread. It's about how coaches are evaluated. If you want to talk about how coaches ought to be evaluated, that is a different discussion.

Keith didn't respond back about this, so I will. No one ever said that I keep my mouth shut.

I hope, and I do think, that in the Ivy League coaches are paid to do more than win games. Winning is an important thing, but it's not the only thing. And sometimes those other things can trump a less than stellar record. I'm OK with that, and all the things that have been said about the direction of the program should allow for some slack. We don't know the specifics of the Denver situation, but their history has some similarities to ours.

Murry Armstrong was a contemporary of Ned Harkness. He stayed around longer, leaving in 1977, but after he left the program was floundering till Gwozdecky came along. He brought it back to national promenance and now they fired him. If it was because he didn't win recent NCAA games, shame on them. If we were to do the same, then shame on us.

Yes, I know the Denver program was more successful than CU has been, but that's to be expected. Anyone who thinks otherwise, well to quote Adam, they're an idiot. If we were to fire Schafer over this year, or even persieved trend, I know I'd quit contributing. Denver is not us and we should never be them.

I'm glad to see so many defenses of Schafer on this thread. I sincerely hope he doesn't read eLynah, and I'm glad that if he does he'll see people coming to his defense. (Not that he should care what a bunch of people on the internet say)

The idea of firing him is ridiculous. It's really, really absurd. One bad year.

FF 2002. One game away from the FF in 2005, 2006, 2009, 2012.

An alumnus coach with strong ties to the community. More Cornellians in the NHL than any time in history. Consistently good news about CLASS award finalists, teddy bear tosses, and the like, and never any news about scandals.

Ridiculous.

Quote from: Jim HylaKeith didn't respond back about this, so I will. No one ever said that I keep my mouth shut.

I thought Tom wrote a better response then the one I started to write.  Yours was better too.  So I'll just second what Tom and Jim said.

Quote from: BMacThe idea of firing him is ridiculous. It's really, really absurd. One bad year.

The idea of firing Schafer is mostly an emotional response to a disappointing, frustrating year. It's really not that different from me kicking my car door after a really tough loss. (Plastic doors FTW!)  Not exactly laudable, but understandable.

Quote from: KeithK

Quote from: BMacThe idea of firing him is ridiculous. It's really, really absurd. One bad year.

The idea of firing Schafer is mostly an emotional response to a disappointing, frustrating year. It's really not that different from me kicking my car door after a really tough loss. (Plastic doors FTW!)  Not exactly laudable, but understandable.

But nobody says you're a bad fan if you don't assault your vehicle.

Door-kicking is false hustle.

Quote from: BMacFF 2002. One game away from the FF in 2005, 2006, 2009, 2012.

You mean, FF 2003.   One game away in '02, '06, '09, '12 and 1997!

Quote from: Scersk '97

Quote from: BMacFF 2002. One game away from the FF in 2005, 2006, 2009, 2012.

You mean, FF 2003.   One game away in '02, '06, '09, '12 and 1997!

And '05 (http://www.tbrw.info/?/cornell_History/cornell_NCAA_Playoff_Bargraph.html).

Quote from: Scersk '97

Quote from: BMacFF 2002. One game away from the FF in 2005, 2006, 2009, 2012.

You mean, FF 2003.   One game away in '02, '06, '09, '12 and 1997!

'05 too.... damned gophers.

Quote from: Chris '03

Quote from: Scersk '97

Quote from: BMacFF 2002. One game away from the FF in 2005, 2006, 2009, 2012.

You mean, FF 2003.   One game away in '02, '06, '09, '12 and 1997!

'05 too.... damned gophers.

A typo, of course, made in my haste to get to '97.

Quote from: Ben

Quote from: KeithK

Quote from: BenThat's not the point. Coaches are not paid for a "journey." They are paid to win games and titles. They are also representatives of the university/team/club and have obligations to represent that entity in a responsible way. This is not a comment on whether or not Schafer should be behind the bench in October, I addressed that on the first page of this thread. It's about how coaches are evaluated. If you want to talk about how coaches ought to be evaluated, that is a different discussion.

The "journey" bit was a reference to how fans should approach watching sports.  It's related to how programs/coaches should be viewed, since ultimately fan interest drives the commercial success of teams, but not the same.  Poor juxtaposition on my point. (A paragraph break might have helped.)

I agree on our side of the boards, but in terms of the way in which results are achieved, I'm reminded of something De Gaulle wrote:

QuoteThe result having been attained, everything that had preceded it and led to it was proclaimed glorious and reasonable.

As a fan, it's great to see your team win a game coming back from 3-0 down, but an excellent coach makes sure his team doesn't have to dig themselves out of that hole.

Union might disagree after seeing what Peca did to them in Providence on Sunday.

Quote from: Jim HylaYes, I know the Denver program was more successful than CU has been, but that's to be expected. Anyone who thinks otherwise, well to quote Adam, they're an idiot. If we were to fire Schafer over this year, or even persieved trend, I know I'd quit contributing. Denver is not us and we should never be them.

Please do not imply that I said this when I quite plainly did not.

If the primary responsibility of a coach is not to win games, what should we base our assessment of coaches upon? As soon as colleges and universities began to hire coaches and formalize athletic competition, they set up a situation in which winning games was (and still is) the primary objective of sports teams. If I had my way, Cornell would take a stand against the corruption of college athletics, end all of its varsity programs, and focus on developing its student body though academics and extracurriculars, including intramural and club sports. No recruiting, no paid coaches. If someone wants to attend Cornell to study Philosophy or HBHS or MechEng, and also would like to play sports, they would be able to do so at the club or intramural level.

Given that the university will not do this, and the financial and personal investment I and others (including the university) make in Cornell sports, I want our sports teams to win games and titles -- I want a return on my investment. That comes in the form of on-field success (without off-field unpleasantness).

Quote from: Ben

Quote from: Jim HylaYes, I know the Denver program was more successful than CU has been, but that's to be expected. Anyone who thinks otherwise, well to quote Adam, they're an idiot. If we were to fire Schafer over this year, or even persieved trend, I know I'd quit contributing. Denver is not us and we should never be them.

Please do not imply that I said this when I quite plainly did not.

If the primary responsibility of a coach is not to win games, what should we base our assessment of coaches upon? As soon as colleges and universities began to hire coaches and formalize athletic competition, they set up a situation in which winning games is the primary objective of sports teams. If I had my way, Cornell would take a stand against the corruption of college athletics, close down all of its varsity programs, and focus on developing its student body though academics and extracurriculars, including intramural and club sports. No recruiting, no paid coaches. If someone wants to attend Cornell to study Philosophy or HBHS or MechEng, and also would like to play sports, they would be able to do so at the club or intramural level.

Given that the university will not do this, and the financial and personal investment I and others (including the university) make in Cornell sports, I want our sports teams to win games and titles -- I want a return on my investment. That comes in the form of on-field success (without off-field unpleasantness).

I didn't mean to imply that you had said anything about Denver. I put that in to head off anyone from starting that discussion. Sorry.

I might agree the primary responsibility is to win, but I was agreeing with Keith that they are not paid to just win, at least in the Ivies. Since you only mentioned winning, I wanted to expand upon it. Now that you have expanded further, I couldn't agree more.

Quote from: Jim Hyla

Quote from: Ben

Quote from: Jim HylaYes, I know the Denver program was more successful than CU has been, but that's to be expected. Anyone who thinks otherwise, well to quote Adam, they're an idiot. If we were to fire Schafer over this year, or even persieved trend, I know I'd quit contributing. Denver is not us and we should never be them.

Please do not imply that I said this when I quite plainly did not.

If the primary responsibility of a coach is not to win games, what should we base our assessment of coaches upon? As soon as colleges and universities began to hire coaches and formalize athletic competition, they set up a situation in which winning games is the primary objective of sports teams. If I had my way, Cornell would take a stand against the corruption of college athletics, close down all of its varsity programs, and focus on developing its student body though academics and extracurriculars, including intramural and club sports. No recruiting, no paid coaches. If someone wants to attend Cornell to study Philosophy or HBHS or MechEng, and also would like to play sports, they would be able to do so at the club or intramural level.

Given that the university will not do this, and the financial and personal investment I and others (including the university) make in Cornell sports, I want our sports teams to win games and titles -- I want a return on my investment. That comes in the form of on-field success (without off-field unpleasantness).

I didn't mean to imply that you had said anything about Denver. I put that in to head off anyone from starting that discussion. Sorry.

I might agree the primary responsibility is to win, but I was agreeing with Keith that they are not paid to just win, at least in the Ivies. Since you only mentioned winning, I wanted to expand upon it. Now that you have expanded further, I couldn't agree more.

I think I misplaced the bolded section. The implication I was getting from what you wrote (the last two sentences) was that I want Schafer to be fired, which is what I was objecting to. Sorry for the confusion.

Quote from: Ben

Quote from: Jim Hyla

Quote from: Ben

Quote from: Jim HylaYes, I know the Denver program was more successful than CU has been, but that's to be expected. Anyone who thinks otherwise, well to quote Adam, they're an idiot. If we were to fire Schafer over this year, or even persieved trend, I know I'd quit contributing. Denver is not us and we should never be them.

Please do not imply that I said this when I quite plainly did not.

If the primary responsibility of a coach is not to win games, what should we base our assessment of coaches upon? As soon as colleges and universities began to hire coaches and formalize athletic competition, they set up a situation in which winning games is the primary objective of sports teams. If I had my way, Cornell would take a stand against the corruption of college athletics, close down all of its varsity programs, and focus on developing its student body though academics and extracurriculars, including intramural and club sports. No recruiting, no paid coaches. If someone wants to attend Cornell to study Philosophy or HBHS or MechEng, and also would like to play sports, they would be able to do so at the club or intramural level.

Given that the university will not do this, and the financial and personal investment I and others (including the university) make in Cornell sports, I want our sports teams to win games and titles -- I want a return on my investment. That comes in the form of on-field success (without off-field unpleasantness).

I didn't mean to imply that you had said anything about Denver. I put that in to head off anyone from starting that discussion. Sorry.

I might agree the primary responsibility is to win, but I was agreeing with Keith that they are not paid to just win, at least in the Ivies. Since you only mentioned winning, I wanted to expand upon it. Now that you have expanded further, I couldn't agree more.

I think I misplaced the bolded section. The implication I was getting from what you wrote (the last two sentences) was that I want Schafer to be fired, which is what I was objecting to. Sorry for the confusion.

No, I wouldn't have meant to try and imply that, either. It's one of the problems wih digital communication, when you respond to one thing and then expand, no one really knows what is reply and what is new. In person, you would have just said, wait, wait, that's not what I meant.

I'm waiting for someone to start on "I couldn't agree more." As soon as I left the office to drive home, I said to myself, I probably took the thread on a whole new drift.

Quote from: BenGiven that the university will not do this, and the financial and personal investment I and others (including the university) make in Cornell sports, I want our sports teams to win games and titles -- I want a return on my investment. That comes in the form of on-field success (without off-field unpleasantness).

For me, return on investment is all of the memorable experiences I have had watching and xperiencing Cornell hockey. Winning titles is a part of that. But so is the heartbreak of losing in Buffalo or that horrible day trip to Placid in '98. Road tripping to the North Country or taking over Bright, win or lose. Or just the simple pleasure of watching a good hockey game. Would I prefer Cornell to win? Of course. But it's far from the end-all-be-all.

Quote from: KeithKFor me, return on investment is all of the memorable experiences I have had watching and xperiencing Cornell hockey. Winning titles is a part of that. But so is the heartbreak of losing in Buffalo or that horrible day trip to Placid in '98. Road tripping to the North Country or taking over Bright, win or lose. Or just the simple pleasure of watching a good hockey game. Would I prefer Cornell to win? Of course. But it's far from the end-all-be-all.

Very well said.  Comraderie and the thrill of watching us compete, often at a very high level.

Quote from: Jim Hyla

Quote from: Ben

Quote from: Jim Hyla

Quote from: Ben

Quote from: Jim HylaI love you

I love you too

You're the best

NO YOU ARE

NO YOU!!!

BRO HUG!!!!!!

Quote from: BMac

Quote from: Jim Hyla

Quote from: Ben

Quote from: Jim Hyla

Quote from: Ben

Quote from: Jim HylaI love you

I love you too

You're the best

NO YOU ARE

NO YOU!!!

BRO HUG!!!!!!

Now stop that will you!

Quote from: KeithK

Quote from: BenGiven that the university will not do this, and the financial and personal investment I and others (including the university) make in Cornell sports, I want our sports teams to win games and titles -- I want a return on my investment. That comes in the form of on-field success (without off-field unpleasantness).

For me, return on investment is all of the memorable experiences I have had watching and xperiencing Cornell hockey. Winning titles is a part of that. But so is the heartbreak of losing in Buffalo or that horrible day trip to Placid in '98. Road tripping to the North Country or taking over Bright, win or lose.

Meeting my wife.

Quote from: Beeeej

Quote from: KeithK

Quote from: BenGiven that the university will not do this, and the financial and personal investment I and others (including the university) make in Cornell sports, I want our sports teams to win games and titles -- I want a return on my investment. That comes in the form of on-field success (without off-field unpleasantness).

For me, return on investment is all of the memorable experiences I have had watching and xperiencing Cornell hockey. Winning titles is a part of that. But so is the heartbreak of losing in Buffalo or that horrible day trip to Placid in '98. Road tripping to the North Country or taking over Bright, win or lose.

Meeting my wife.

First date with my wife, with dinner at Little Joe's --I knew how to show a lady a good time!

Quote from: Beeeej

Quote from: KeithK

Quote from: BenGiven that the university will not do this, and the financial and personal investment I and others (including the university) make in Cornell sports, I want our sports teams to win games and titles -- I want a return on my investment. That comes in the form of on-field success (without off-field unpleasantness).

For me, return on investment is all of the memorable experiences I have had watching and xperiencing Cornell hockey. Winning titles is a part of that. But so is the heartbreak of losing in Buffalo or that horrible day trip to Placid in '98. Road tripping to the North Country or taking over Bright, win or lose.

Meeting my wife.

Met my wife, actually our first date, at a Cornell NCAA regional game. Gwen's dorm-mates thought it was incredibly romantic. I thought: two birds, one stone.

Quote from: billhoward

Quote from: Beeeej

Quote from: KeithK

Quote from: BenGiven that the university will not do this, and the financial and personal investment I and others (including the university) make in Cornell sports, I want our sports teams to win games and titles -- I want a return on my investment. That comes in the form of on-field success (without off-field unpleasantness).

For me, return on investment is all of the memorable experiences I have had watching and xperiencing Cornell hockey. Winning titles is a part of that. But so is the heartbreak of losing in Buffalo or that horrible day trip to Placid in '98. Road tripping to the North Country or taking over Bright, win or lose.

Meeting my wife.

Met my wife, actually our first date, at a Cornell NCAA regional game. Gwen's dorm-mates thought it was incredibly romantic. I thought: two birds, one stone.

I can see it now: Come to Lynah Rink! Watch some hockey, get married!

Quote from: KeithK

Quote from: billhoward

Quote from: Beeeej

Quote from: KeithK

Quote from: BenGiven that the university will not do this, and the financial and personal investment I and others (including the university) make in Cornell sports, I want our sports teams to win games and titles -- I want a return on my investment. That comes in the form of on-field success (without off-field unpleasantness).

For me, return on investment is all of the memorable experiences I have had watching and xperiencing Cornell hockey. Winning titles is a part of that. But so is the heartbreak of losing in Buffalo or that horrible day trip to Placid in '98. Road tripping to the North Country or taking over Bright, win or lose.

Meeting my wife.

Met my wife, actually our first date, at a Cornell NCAA regional game. Gwen's dorm-mates thought it was incredibly romantic. I thought: two birds, one stone.

I can see it now: Come to Lynah Rink! Watch some hockey, get married!

I met my late wife while on the faculty at SU, my first job after finishing graduate school at Cornell.   At first, Jan thought that I was also dating someone else, because I didn't ask her out on some weekends.  For years after we were married, she told friends that she knew I was really serious about her when I got a second season ticket.  

After her death in 2006, I memorialized those seats in section B.

Denver looking even more brilliant (http://www.lighthousehockey.com/2013/4/5/4188420/scott-mayfield-signs-new-york-islanders-denver-university).

Quote from: Ben

Quote from: Tom Lento

Quote from: BenAre we paying coaches for journeys? If so, Schafer had better be leading Senior Week rafting trips.

Actually, Cornell does pay coaches for things other than wins and championships. Historically, the AD has been willing to keep coaches with frankly terrible records around provided they were under contract and running the program the right way. In light of this, think about the facts of Schafer's current position:

1) Whatever the naysayers claim, his record is incredible. Cornell has been the class of the ECAC and Ivy League for most of the last 15 years, and has been nationally competitive at a level of consistency few teams achieve. That's a hell of an accomplishment from a W/L perspective. Even if you only consider 5 year windows, Cornell was pretty damn good prior to this season, and only an eyelash behind Yale and Union in terms of overall record and post-season accomplishments in the 5 years ending in 2012. The team is quite a bit further behind Yale and Union over the 5 seasons ending in 2013, but this amounts to 1 rebuilding year and 1 bad season (and this was a bad season - let's not sugar-coat it). That's hardly the sign of a massive decline. Even in the go go years of the 70s Cornell wasn't *always* the best - or even the second-best - team in the league. Not over a 10-15 year window.

2) Under Schafer's watch this team has had more news about humanitarian and senior CLASS award finalists than even minor scandals regarding off-ice behavior. That doesn't mean these guys are all angels, but it's at least a sign of a clean, disciplined program. If that trend continues, and assuming Schafer still enforces class attendance and academic performance the way he used to, it'll take more than a couple of .500 seasons for the AD to make a change.

3) According to something I read around here Schafer has ~4 years left on his contract. Given points 1 and 2 Cornell would be insane to fire him during that term. Even if this year is finally the start of the kind of decline the "Fire Schafer" crowd has been carping about around here for the past 6 years, they won't fire him. They'll simply decide to part ways at the end of the contract term, and split as amicably as possible.

Barring a major scandal, Schafer isn't getting fired any time soon. At this stage I think I have sufficient perspective to realize that this is as it should be. Feel free to disagree and focus solely on the record in these conversations, but remember - Cornell athletics is, at least to all appearances, about more than just winning.

That's not the point. Coaches are not paid for a "journey." They are paid to win games and titles. They are also representatives of the university/team/club and have obligations to represent that entity in a responsible way. This is not a comment on whether or not Schafer should be behind the bench in October, I addressed that on the first page of this thread. It's about how coaches are evaluated. If you want to talk about how coaches ought to be evaluated, that is a different discussion.

I get the feeling you didn't actually read my post. My entire point was that coaches at Cornell are paid for more than just wins and titles, and the way they (and their teams) represent the organization are a more important part of how they're evaluated than you seem to believe. It's not just Cornell, either, it happens around the Ivy League, and you can see this if you look at the coaching histories of their hockey teams. The most obvious example is Allain's predecessor at Yale, Tim Taylor, who was the head coach for 30 years (with 2 seasons off to coach in the Olympics) and widely regarded as a classy guy and an excellent representative of Yale and its athletic program. Taylor's record over his 28 seasons at Yale was 342-433-55, with 11 seasons over .500, just 3 seasons with 20+ wins, 1 1st place finish, 1 NCAA appearance (first-round loss), and 0 league championships.

To put it another way, if Cornell has 2 more 15-16-3 seasons I'd still expect Schafer to have his job at least until his contract runs out, because by all accounts he does well across *all* of the other dimensions (the academic and community service records of his team, alumni relations, administrative work, etc.). Whether or not that gets him an extension beyond the last year of his contract is an unknown, and the only thing that would surprise me with 2 more mediocre seasons is a really long or lucrative extension. 3 consecutive nearly-.500 seasons is actually unprecedented in the modern (ECAC) era of Cornell men's hockey. The only coach with 3 straight losing seasons is Brian McCutcheon, and two of those years were dreadful (14 wins *combined*).

Quote from: TrotskyDenver looking even more brilliant (http://www.lighthousehockey.com/2013/4/5/4188420/scott-mayfield-signs-new-york-islanders-denver-university).

Coach with two national titles in the past decade bounced, top prospect leaves. Maybe Bill Tierney can coach two sports.

Quote from: George64

Quote from: KeithK

Quote from: billhoward

Quote from: Beeeej

Quote from: KeithK

Quote from: BenGiven that the university will not do this, and the financial and personal investment I and others (including the university) make in Cornell sports, I want our sports teams to win games and titles -- I want a return on my investment. That comes in the form of on-field success (without off-field unpleasantness).

For me, return on investment is all of the memorable experiences I have had watching and xperiencing Cornell hockey. Winning titles is a part of that. But so is the heartbreak of losing in Buffalo or that horrible day trip to Placid in '98. Road tripping to the North Country or taking over Bright, win or lose.

Meeting my wife.

Met my wife, actually our first date, at a Cornell NCAA regional game. Gwen's dorm-mates thought it was incredibly romantic. I thought: two birds, one stone.

I can see it now: Come to Lynah Rink! Watch some hockey, get married!

I met my late wife while on the faculty at SU, my first job after finishing graduate school at Cornell.   At first, Jan thought that I was also dating someone else, because I didn't ask her out on some weekends.  For years after we were married, she told friends that she knew I was really serious about her when I got a second season ticket.  

After her death in 2006, I memorialized those seats in section B.

Where is the smiley for :lump in throat: ?

+2

Ken Schott reports that Union coach Bennett gets contract extension. (http://www.dailygazette.com/weblogs/schott/2013/apr/09/union-hockey-coach-bennett-rewarded-again-with-con/)

QuoteI've been fortunate enough to get the job about 30 minutes after Nate had left, and to my loyalty, too, to this program to not be out looking for other jobs when I am 100 percent comfortable at Union College.

"I don't have any desire to go anywhere else. I'm extremely happy here."

So, he's not available.:-D

Quote from: Jim HylaKen Schott reports that Union coach Bennett gets contract extension. (http://www.dailygazette.com/weblogs/schott/2013/apr/09/union-hockey-coach-bennett-rewarded-again-with-con/)

QuoteI've been fortunate enough to get the job about 30 minutes after Nate had left, and to my loyalty, too, to this program to not be out looking for other jobs when I am 100 percent comfortable at Union College.

"I don't have any desire to go anywhere else. I'm extremely happy here."

So, he's not available.:-D

Who knows? Ask Steve Alford.

Quote from: Jim HylaKen Schott reports that Union coach Bennett gets contract extension. (http://www.dailygazette.com/weblogs/schott/2013/apr/09/union-hockey-coach-bennett-rewarded-again-with-con/)

I don't understand this.  Last year, Union finished first in the ECAC, won 26 games overall, and made the Frozen Four.  This year they finished fourth, won only 22 games, and finished a game short of the Frozen Four -- losing to an ECAC team yet.  Why give this guy yet another extension when the team is clearly in a death spiral??

(Tongue firmly in cheek, in case you couldn't tell)

Quote from: Give My Regards

Quote from: Jim HylaKen Schott reports that Union coach Bennett gets contract extension. (http://www.dailygazette.com/weblogs/schott/2013/apr/09/union-hockey-coach-bennett-rewarded-again-with-con/)

I don't understand this.  Last year, Union finished first in the ECAC, won 26 games overall, and made the Frozen Four.  This year they finished fourth, won only 22 games, and finished a game short of the Frozen Four -- losing to an ECAC team yet.  Why give this guy yet another extension when the team is clearly in a death spiral??

FYP

Quote from: BenAs a fan, it's great to see your team win a game coming back from 3-0 down, but an excellent coach makes sure his team doesn't have to dig themselves out of that hole.

News flash. Motzko no longer considered excellent.

Hear, hear.

yale wins......    wow  there is another way.

Guys. we are in a rut,  good coach, but time to move on.  Yale, Tim Taylor gone + national championship and it f'ing, kills me.   cowbell bell guy and ithaca girl lit into me last year on the chat site for saying we were a mess, and then we did a near frozen four, so i shut up, but we are a boring team.  I cant watch us anymore.  time for a change

Quote from: marty

Quote from: BenAs a fan, it's great to see your team win a game coming back from 3-0 down, but an excellent coach makes sure his team doesn't have to dig themselves out of that hole.

News flash. Motzko no longer considered excellent.

Ditto Pecknold. Time to replace him, too.

Quote from: marty

Quote from: marty

Quote from: BenAs a fan, it's great to see your team win a game coming back from 3-0 down, but an excellent coach makes sure his team doesn't have to dig themselves out of that hole.

News flash. Motzko no longer considered excellent.

Ditto Pecknold. Time to replace him, too.

Way to not get the point at all.

As one can see I am new to this forum. However I have followed Cornell hockey for the last few years and now have a more vested interest due to my son coming there in a few years. The suggestions that Coach Schafer should be replaced is just plan off the planet. Obviously wins and losses are now becoming paramount to a coaches success but what other qualities does he bring to the program. Yes this was not the greatest year for the Big Red,but they hit a rut, no one quit the compete level was still there and they worked their way back to get within one game of A.C. Last I had checked before this game Yale was 0-3 against Q. Coach Alain made a change and got the win. Coach Schafer will get this back on track and I do firmly believe that this next season will be special.

Really,  I cant wait for next year....

A few points relating to this entire thread:
1)  As fans, I don't think we are entitled to anything, even if you are a donor directly to the hockey program.
2)  Mike Schafer has brought us many wonderful moments guiding the Cornell hockey progam.
3)  Mike Schafer is well aware of this year's shortcomings and will work his darndest to produce positive change
4)  There's not a lot of difference between being a champ and being a disappointment.  If either BU or Michigan win their final game, Yale doesn't even make the tournament.  They would have given away what looked like a sure playoff spot and played terribly in Altantic City.  If Eric Axell doesn't break his stick on the opening faceoff of the 3rd period vs. Ferris State last year, which led seconds later to their winning goal. who knows what might have happened.  
5)  This isn't pro sports.  It's Cornell hockey and I'll always love it.

Quote from: jkahnA few points relating to this entire thread:
1)  As fans, I don't think we are entitled to anything, even if you are a donor directly to the hockey program.
2)  Mike Schafer has brought us many wonderful moments guiding the Cornell hockey progam.
3)  Mike Schafer is well aware of this year's shortcomings and will work his darndest to produce positive change
4)  There's not a lot of difference between being a champ and being a disappointment.  If either BU or Michigan win their final game, Yale doesn't even make the tournament.  They would have given away what looked like a sure playoff spot and played terribly in Altantic City.  If Eric Axell doesn't break his stick on the opening faceoff of the 3rd period vs. Ferris State last year, which led seconds later to their winning goal. who knows what might have happened.  
5)  This isn't pro sports.  It's Cornell hockey and I'll always love it.

Well said!

Agree !  Looking forward to next October already!  LGR

Amen. Especially the part that Schafer is aware of what needs to be addressed next season.

Quote from: billhowardAmen. Especially the part that Schafer is aware of what needs to be addressed next season.

As are the assistants, and you don't want the following on your resume: "hired by a perennial contender who promptly fell apart."  Even before Mike, those guys' necks are in the noose.  They have to have us improve, quickly, for them to advance in their profession.

Quote from: jkahnA few points relating to this entire thread:
1)  As fans, I don't think we are entitled to anything, even if you are a donor directly to the hockey program.
2)  Mike Schafer has brought us many wonderful moments guiding the Cornell hockey progam.
3)  Mike Schafer is well aware of this year's shortcomings and will work his darndest to produce positive change
4)  There's not a lot of difference between being a champ and being a disappointment.  If either BU or Michigan win their final game, Yale doesn't even make the tournament.  They would have given away what looked like a sure playoff spot and played terribly in Altantic City.  If Eric Axell doesn't break his stick on the opening faceoff of the 3rd period vs. Ferris State last year, which led seconds later to their winning goal. who knows what might have happened.  
5)  This isn't pro sports.  It's Cornell hockey and I'll always love it.

+1

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: billhowardAmen. Especially the part that Schafer is aware of what needs to be addressed next season.

As are the assistants, and you don't want the following on your resume: "hired by a perennial contender who promptly fell apart."  Even before Mike, those guys' necks are in the noose.  They have to have us improve, quickly, for them to advance in their profession.

And don't forget that a team of Ben Syer's recruits was the best team in college hockey during the regular season and was the runner-up in the NCAA Tournament.

Quote from: Chris '03

Quote from: css228

Quote from: cbuckserBringing this back on topic (but at risk of breaking the united front), as I watch George Gwozdecky's press conference (http://www.denverpioneers.com//mediaPortal/player.dbml?&id=579984&catid=0&KEY=&DB_OEM_ID=18600&utm_source=internal&utm_medium=rotator&utm_campaign=lerotator), I am further convinced of the inanity of firing Mike Schafer. Unrealistic expectations yield atrocious decisions.

I'm actually on the Fire Schafer, hire Gwozdecky bandwagon. I wouldn't fire Schafer without a coach I thought of as an an improvement, but lo and behold...

For my money, UConn might be the best fit. They don't have a coach, he gets a year to get his ducks in a row, then rolls on to HEA with low expectations. They will throw money at him to make a splash in HEA and don't have academic constraints like Harvard or to a lesser extent RPI. And Connecticut is the new hub of college hockey apparently.

https://twitter.com/Buccigross/status/329982614075240448

Quote from: RichH

Quote from: Chris '03

Quote from: css228

Quote from: cbuckserBringing this back on topic (but at risk of breaking the united front), as I watch George Gwozdecky's press conference (http://www.denverpioneers.com//mediaPortal/player.dbml?&id=579984&catid=0&KEY=&DB_OEM_ID=18600&utm_source=internal&utm_medium=rotator&utm_campaign=lerotator), I am further convinced of the inanity of firing Mike Schafer. Unrealistic expectations yield atrocious decisions.

I'm actually on the Fire Schafer, hire Gwozdecky bandwagon. I wouldn't fire Schafer without a coach I thought of as an an improvement, but lo and behold...

For my money, UConn might be the best fit. They don't have a coach, he gets a year to get his ducks in a row, then rolls on to HEA with low expectations. They will throw money at him to make a splash in HEA and don't have academic constraints like Harvard or to a lesser extent RPI. And Connecticut is the new hub of college hockey apparently.

https://twitter.com/Buccigross/status/329982614075240448

Not just any discussions, INTENSE discussions.

Quote from: Josh '99Not just any discussions, INTENSE discussions.

(http://galleries.lernerphoto.com/BGA/content/bin/images/large/05_051213_W0591_3313M2.jpg)

Quote from: RichH

Quote from: Chris '03

Quote from: css228

Quote from: cbuckserBringing this back on topic (but at risk of breaking the united front), as I watch George Gwozdecky's press conference (http://www.denverpioneers.com//mediaPortal/player.dbml?&id=579984&catid=0&KEY=&DB_OEM_ID=18600&utm_source=internal&utm_medium=rotator&utm_campaign=lerotator), I am further convinced of the inanity of firing Mike Schafer. Unrealistic expectations yield atrocious decisions.

I'm actually on the Fire Schafer, hire Gwozdecky bandwagon. I wouldn't fire Schafer without a coach I thought of as an an improvement, but lo and behold...

For my money, UConn might be the best fit. They don't have a coach, he gets a year to get his ducks in a row, then rolls on to HEA with low expectations. They will throw money at him to make a splash in HEA and don't have academic constraints like Harvard or to a lesser extent RPI. And Connecticut is the new hub of college hockey apparently.

https://twitter.com/Buccigross/status/329982614075240448

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. ::banana::
Give UConn credit. When they go for something, they go all in.

I don't understand why John Buccigross was the least bit surprised. It has been well known that UConn has been looking to upgrade its program as it transitions from Atlantic Hockey to Hockey East. This is an obvious way for UConn to make a splash.

Quote from: Chris '03

Quote from: RichH

Quote from: Chris '03

Quote from: css228

Quote from: cbuckserBringing this back on topic (but at risk of breaking the united front), as I watch George Gwozdecky's press conference (http://www.denverpioneers.com//mediaPortal/player.dbml?&id=579984&catid=0&KEY=&DB_OEM_ID=18600&utm_source=internal&utm_medium=rotator&utm_campaign=lerotator), I am further convinced of the inanity of firing Mike Schafer. Unrealistic expectations yield atrocious decisions.

I'm actually on the Fire Schafer, hire Gwozdecky bandwagon. I wouldn't fire Schafer without a coach I thought of as an an improvement, but lo and behold...

For my money, UConn might be the best fit. They don't have a coach, he gets a year to get his ducks in a row, then rolls on to HEA with low expectations. They will throw money at him to make a splash in HEA and don't have academic constraints like Harvard or to a lesser extent RPI. And Connecticut is the new hub of college hockey apparently.

https://twitter.com/Buccigross/status/329982614075240448

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. ::banana::
Give UConn credit. When they go for something, they go all in.

Or not...USCHO/Hartford Courant say it's Cavanaugh.

http://www.courant.com/sports/college/blog/hc-mike-cavanaugh-in-final-negotiations-to-become-uconn-hockey-coach-20130507,0,877510.story
http://www.uscho.com/2013/05/07/boston-college-assistant-cavanaugh-reportedly-next-connecticut-coach/