ELynah Forum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: LynahFaithful

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: LynahFaithful

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

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

Quote from: Swampy

Quote from: LynahFaithful

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Towerroad

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

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

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

Quote

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

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

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

Quote from: LynahFaithful

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: LynahFaithful

Quote from: Swampy

Quote from: LynahFaithful

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Towerroad

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If Schafer goes, then who could Cornell bring in?

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

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

If Schafer goes, then who could Cornell bring in?

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Cop at LynahMike has already stated publicly that he tried new systems and they just didn't work.

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

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

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

Here's one coach we won't have. (http://gocheckers.com/articles/1255-hurricanes-hire-mark-morris-as-charlotte-checkers-ahl-head-coach) :-D

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: 06Cowboy13There shouldn't be a question whether Mike's contract is renewed. He has built this program up over the last 15 years to be a force, year after year. Our goaltending(Gillam, Iles, Scrivens, McKee and Leneveau etc.) has been top notch year after year and our defense is extremely solid. Our lack of offense is a bit of an issue this past season but it will come around with a new stock of young blood. It's a shame many of you armchair quarterbacks have taken one of the best coaches in the country for granted and are itching for a change. The grass is always greener on the other side, but sometimes its painted green. He has maintained and built a foundation for consistent winning tradition for the Big Red and should be given a 5 year extension. If Mike and his staff get us a few snipers and a Brian Ferlin type forward with this years class or next, we are taking the ECAC's in March and maybe even going to the frozen four. I guess its so easy to recruit to an IVY League School these days according to some of y'all. Keep up the good work Mike, just a fluke last year!

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

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

Quote from: 06Cowboy13It's a shame many of you armchair quarterbacks have taken one of the best coaches in the country for granted and are itching for a change. The grass is always greener on the other side, but sometimes its painted green. He has maintained and built a foundation for consistent winning tradition for the Big Red and should be given a 5 year extension.

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

Quote from: 06Cowboy13If Mike and his staff get us a few snipers and a Brian Ferlin type forward with this years class or next, we are taking the ECAC's in March and maybe even going to the frozen four. I guess its so easy to recruit to an IVY League School these days according to some of y'all. Keep up the good work Mike, just a fluke last year!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Trotsky

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Trotsky

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

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

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

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

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

Agree.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Andy- perhaps under pressure from above- fired the successful alumnus coach of his most successful men's sport.  I don't trust that Andy would handle a post-game altercation with opposing players and coaches  (short version) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-AzBqb1h1g) and (long version) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Go37npwiuQ) as patiently as the Union AD.

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

Quote from: Trotsky

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: TimVAndy- perhaps under pressure from above- fired the successful alumnus coach of his most successful men's sport.  I don't trust that Andy would handle a post-game altercation with opposing players and coaches  (short version) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-AzBqb1h1g) and (long version) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Go37npwiuQ) as patiently as the Union AD.

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

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

Quote from: TimV

Quote from: Trotsky

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Ralph!

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

Quote from: ursusminor

Quote from: TimV

Quote from: Trotsky

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

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

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

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

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

5/5 Stars for saying it.

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

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

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

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

Quote from: LynahFaithfulIf so, is Ken Dryden another option or is he invested enough in Canadian politics that he's out of the question?

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

Wow.  I'm duly chastised.

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

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

Quote from: TimVWow.  I'm duly chastised.

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

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

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

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

Nah. I'm here for the jokes.

Quote from: ursusminor

Quote from: TimV

Quote from: Trotsky

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: RichH

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: LynahFaithful

Quote from: ursusminor

Quote from: TimV

Quote from: Trotsky

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

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

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

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

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

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

Top three reasons for SOME RPI fans:

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

Although many blame The Altercation  to avoid dealing with the actual reasons.::screwy::;-)

Quote from: TimV

Quote from: LynahFaithful

Quote from: ursusminor

Quote from: TimV

Quote from: Trotsky

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

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

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

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

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

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

Top three reasons for SOME RPI fans:

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

Although many blame The Altercation  to avoid dealing with the actual reasons.::screwy::;-)

RPI did defeat Union in both ECAC contests last season.

Quote from: ursusminor

Quote from: TimV

Quote from: LynahFaithfulWhy don't you like Bennett?  What's the strong dislike rooted in?

Top three reasons for SOME RPI fans:

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

Although many blame The Altercation  to avoid dealing with the actual reasons.::screwy::;-)

RPI did defeat Union in both ECAC contests last season.

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

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

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

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

Looks like Bennett has your number to me.

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

Quote from: TimVWow.  I'm duly chastised.

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, when is he signing that Cornell contract? ::bolt::

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

Quote from: TimV

Quote from: ursusminor

Quote from: TimV

Quote from: LynahFaithfulWhy don't you like Bennett?  What's the strong dislike rooted in?

Top three reasons for SOME RPI fans:

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

Although many blame The Altercation  to avoid dealing with the actual reasons.::screwy::;-)

RPI did defeat Union in both ECAC contests last season.

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

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

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

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

Looks like Bennett has your number to me.

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

Tim,

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

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

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

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

Quote from: ursusminor

Quote from: TimV

Quote from: ursusminor

Quote from: TimV

Quote from: LynahFaithfulWhy don't you like Bennett?  What's the strong dislike rooted in?

Top three reasons for SOME RPI fans:

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

Although many blame The Altercation  to avoid dealing with the actual reasons.::screwy::;-)

RPI did defeat Union in both ECAC contests last season.

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

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

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

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

Looks like Bennett has your number to me.

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

Tim,

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

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

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

Which two are you referring to?

Quote from: Jim Hyla

Quote from: ursusminor

Quote from: TimV

Quote from: ursusminor

Quote from: TimV

Quote from: LynahFaithfulWhy don't you like Bennett?  What's the strong dislike rooted in?

Top three reasons for SOME RPI fans:

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

Although many blame The Altercation  to avoid dealing with the actual reasons.::screwy::;-)

RPI did defeat Union in both ECAC contests last season.

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

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

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

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

Looks like Bennett has your number to me.

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

Tim,

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

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

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

Which two are you referring to?

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

Sorry to resurrect an old thread.....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: marty

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: redice

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: andyw2100I find it hard to agree that the wheels are coming off the bus in a season that saw seven OT ties and 3 OT losses.

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

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

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

Quote from: andyw2100I find it hard to agree that the wheels are coming off the bus in a season that saw seven OT ties and 3 OT losses.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: andyw2100I find it hard to agree that the wheels are coming off the bus in a season that saw seven OT ties and 3 OT losses.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(http://i159.photobucket.com/albums/t147/Coelacanth64/Cornell%20Armada%20vs%20Yale.jpg) (http://s159.photobucket.com/user/Coelacanth64/media/Cornell%20Armada%20vs%20Yale.jpg.html)

A little hysterical perspective?

::help::

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

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

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

Coming soon (http://www.tbrw.info/?/seasons/2016/2016_Future_Players.html) we've got a whole bunch of smaller forwards: Donaldson at 5-6, Hoffman and Regush at 5-9, Murphy and Nelson at 5-10.  Of 16 commitments only one is over 6-2 (and he's just 6-3).  On the current roster of 28, 13 are over 6-2, and that includes 4 at 6-5 and Hillbrich at whatever ridiculous height he is.

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

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

Quote from: Trotsky

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

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

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

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

Quote from: redice

Quote from: Trotsky

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you want to know what our problem is, this (http://www.tbrw.info/?/players/cornell_20_Goals_by_Year.html) is a good place to start.  Typically, dominant teams -- even well balanced teams that play just as hard on defense as offense like the Union championship team -- have one of two forwards who are deadly.  They change the entire complexion of a game.

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: redice

Quote from: Trotsky

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you want to know what our problem is, this (http://www.tbrw.info/?/players/cornell_20_Goals_by_Year.html) is a good place to start.  Typically, dominant teams -- even well balanced teams that play just as hard on defense as offense like the Union championship team -- have one of two forwards who are deadly.  They change the entire complexion of a game.[/quote

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Trotsky

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

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

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

Coming soon (http://www.tbrw.info/?/seasons/2016/2016_Future_Players.html) we've got a whole bunch of smaller forwards: Donaldson at 5-6, Hoffman and Regush at 5-9, Murphy and Nelson at 5-10.  Of 16 commitments only one is over 6-2 (and he's just 6-3).  On the current roster of 28, 13 are over 6-2, and that includes 4 at 6-5 and Hillbrich at whatever ridiculous height he is.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Beeeej

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

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

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

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

Quote from: redice

Quote from: Beeeej

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Beeeej

Quote from: redice

Quote from: Beeeej

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: redice

Quote from: Beeeej

Quote from: redice

Quote from: Beeeej

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: TimVThis team is brutal to watch, especially once we're down by two goals

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

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

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: TimVThis team is brutal to watch, especially once we're down by two goals

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

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

Agreed..

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: TimVThis team is brutal to watch, especially once we're down by two goals

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

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

I'd be happy with a return to the good ol' 9-0, 14-2, 19-1 days (http://www.tbrw.info/reports/rptCornell_Games_by_Year/rptCornell_Games_1968.pdf).

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

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

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

Coming soon (http://www.tbrw.info/?/seasons/2016/2016_Future_Players.html) we've got a whole bunch of smaller forwards: Donaldson at 5-6, Hoffman and Regush at 5-9, Murphy and Nelson at 5-10.  Of 16 commitments only one is over 6-2 (and he's just 6-3).  On the current roster of 28, 13 are over 6-2, and that includes 4 at 6-5 and Hillbrich at whatever ridiculous height he is.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, some people do. Do you?

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

One of the coaches is one of the best small players (http://ecachockey.com/images/men/Cornell/Topher_Scott) we've ever had.

Quote from: Trotsky

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

One of the coaches is one of the best small players (http://ecachockey.com/images/men/Cornell/Topher_Scott) we've ever had.

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

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

Quote from: marty

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

Yes, some people do. Do you?

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

Quote from: Trotsky

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

One of the coaches is one of the best small players (http://ecachockey.com/images/men/Cornell/Topher_Scott) we've ever had.

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

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: Trotsky

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

One of the coaches is one of the best small players (http://ecachockey.com/images/men/Cornell/Topher_Scott) we've ever had.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Jim HylaI still don't understand how people can still imply that Schafer hasn't changed.

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

Quote from: Jim HylaNo, there's no doubt in my mind that Schafer wants to play a more uptempo game.

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

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

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: TimVThis team is brutal to watch, especially once we're down by two goals

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: BearLover

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I say hire Mike Eaves. He won it all.::whistle::::bolt::

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

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

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

Quote from: cuhockey93The lack of development of last years senior class was much more discouraging than anything Schafer has done this year. The fact that a team mostly composed of Freshman got within a goal of the Frozen Four only to see the players perform no better 3 seasons later was unacceptable (see Capt. John McCarron). Also as others have said Cornell hockey is boring. Look at what Ghost is doing at the next level, just like he did against us. That is the style of play that current students are accustomed to. Most students don't even remember the 90s devils teams...

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

Quote from: cuhockey93The lack of development of last years senior class was much more discouraging than anything Schafer has done this year. The fact that a team mostly composed of Freshman got within a goal of the Frozen Four only to see the players perform no better 3 seasons later was unacceptable (see Capt. John Mccarran).

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

Goalie:
Andy Iles (SO)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Scersk '97

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: TrotskyI always thought that was going to be Patrick McCarron, whose lack of development is disappointing.

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

Quote from: Scersk '97

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

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

I remember a blast vs Sucks in Albany. :-)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: martyI remember a blast vs Sucks in Albany. :-)

A real blast from the past

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

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

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

Quote from: KeithK

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

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

We'd only have a change if Andy noticed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: BearLover

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: marty

Quote from: BearLover

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shots -are- a good metric: http://www.21stclub.com/2014/12/23/understanding-new-developments-in-shot-based-metrics/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Three most recent ECAC titles:

1068-753 in '03 http://collegehockeystats.net/0203/teamstats/corm

830-1025 in '05

982-956 in 10

Quote from: Chris '03

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

Three most recent ECAC titles:

1068-753 in '03 http://collegehockeystats.net/0203/teamstats/corm

830-1025 in '05

982-956 in 10

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

I'll take '03 any day.

Quote from: Chris '03

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

Three most recent ECAC titles:

1068-753 in '03 http://collegehockeystats.net/0203/teamstats/corm

830-1025 in '05

982-956 in 10

Huh?  We were outshot by 200 shots in 2005?

EDIT: Other way around.

Nm

Quote from: Chris '03Three most recent ECAC titles:

1068-753 in '03 http://collegehockeystats.net/0203/teamstats/corm

830-1025 in '05

982-956 in 10

Unfortunately, you reversed '05.

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

Quote from: Scersk '97

Quote from: Chris '03Three most recent ECAC titles:

1068-753 in '03 http://collegehockeystats.net/0203/teamstats/corm

830-1025 in '05

982-956 in 10

Unfortunately, you reversed '05 '03

FYP

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Jim HylaIf we continue to build upon what our freshmen have done, I think the future will be brighter.

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

Quote from: Jim HylaHowever if we beat Q, I'd consider this year a success, wouldn't you?

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

Quote from: Jim Hyla

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: Jim Hyla

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: css228I'll say what I'd want to see in a new coach. I want a Dave Hakstol style system that aggressively challenges opponents with a forecheck and d-men pinching regularly to create offense. And i want to see a team that is encouraged to carry the puck rather than dump and chase. The best defense is controlling the puck, and I've had enough of the damn 1-2-2 trap. And furthermore I want a coach that can recruit players who ultimately make a difference not only in the college level, but eventually the NHL. They don't have to be draft picks coming into school, but we should have the kind of guys who have the talent that with 3-4 years in school actually make a difference. A lot of people here say thats a ridiculous expectation, but if Union can get a Shayne Gostisbehere or Bemidji State can get a Matt Read, there is no reason that we can't recruit those guys. Ghost wasn't even drafted until after his freshman year. So you can't tell me that he wasn't a guy we could have had.

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

Quote from: scoop85Well, isn't it possible that Gostisbehere may not have had the academic qualifications to gain admission to Cornell? It's not just a matter of the coaches picking anyone they want.

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

Quote from: scoop85

Quote from: css228I'll say what I'd want to see in a new coach. I want a Dave Hakstol style system that aggressively challenges opponents with a forecheck and d-men pinching regularly to create offense. And i want to see a team that is encouraged to carry the puck rather than dump and chase. The best defense is controlling the puck, and I've had enough of the damn 1-2-2 trap. And furthermore I want a coach that can recruit players who ultimately make a difference not only in the college level, but eventually the NHL. They don't have to be draft picks coming into school, but we should have the kind of guys who have the talent that with 3-4 years in school actually make a difference. A lot of people here say thats a ridiculous expectation, but if Union can get a Shayne Gostisbehere or Bemidji State can get a Matt Read, there is no reason that we can't recruit those guys. Ghost wasn't even drafted until after his freshman year. So you can't tell me that he wasn't a guy we could have had.

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

He had a 3.93 at Union. So doubtful.

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

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

Quote from: css228

Quote from: scoop85

Quote from: css228I'll say what I'd want to see in a new coach. I want a Dave Hakstol style system that aggressively challenges opponents with a forecheck and d-men pinching regularly to create offense. And i want to see a team that is encouraged to carry the puck rather than dump and chase. The best defense is controlling the puck, and I've had enough of the damn 1-2-2 trap. And furthermore I want a coach that can recruit players who ultimately make a difference not only in the college level, but eventually the NHL. They don't have to be draft picks coming into school, but we should have the kind of guys who have the talent that with 3-4 years in school actually make a difference. A lot of people here say thats a ridiculous expectation, but if Union can get a Shayne Gostisbehere or Bemidji State can get a Matt Read, there is no reason that we can't recruit those guys. Ghost wasn't even drafted until after his freshman year. So you can't tell me that he wasn't a guy we could have had.

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

He had a 3.93 at Union. So doubtful.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: css228I'll say what I'd want to see in a new coach. I want a Dave Hakstol style system that aggressively challenges opponents with a forecheck and d-men pinching regularly to create offense. And i want to see a team that is encouraged to carry the puck rather than dump and chase. The best defense is controlling the puck, and I've had enough of the damn 1-2-2 trap. .........

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

But, good luck with it!!

Quote from: marty

Quote from: css228

Quote from: scoop85

Quote from: css228I'll say what I'd want to see in a new coach. I want a Dave Hakstol style system that aggressively challenges opponents with a forecheck and d-men pinching regularly to create offense. And i want to see a team that is encouraged to carry the puck rather than dump and chase. The best defense is controlling the puck, and I've had enough of the damn 1-2-2 trap. And furthermore I want a coach that can recruit players who ultimately make a difference not only in the college level, but eventually the NHL. They don't have to be draft picks coming into school, but we should have the kind of guys who have the talent that with 3-4 years in school actually make a difference. A lot of people here say thats a ridiculous expectation, but if Union can get a Shayne Gostisbehere or Bemidji State can get a Matt Read, there is no reason that we can't recruit those guys. Ghost wasn't even drafted until after his freshman year. So you can't tell me that he wasn't a guy we could have had.

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

He had a 3.93 at Union. So doubtful.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: css228Also everyone is so high on Angello and Vanderlaan but those two are shooting at an unreal percentage this year. When Angello and Vanderlaan don't shoot at 16.7% and 14.3% respectively next year, everyone's going to wonder what happened when they should really just apply Occam's razor and realize that their true talent probably wasn't that high in the first place. I could see maybe Vanderlaan maintaining something in that range, but for the record, even an all time great goalscorer like Ovi only shoots at 12.3% year on year. You have to look at all time great snipers like Stamkos and Hull to see people with shooting percentages in the Angello range.

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

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

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

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

Quote from: css228Yeah but when the last time we've recruited a blue liner that is even remotely like Ghost in style of play.

Joakim Ryan?  Point stands, though.  

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

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

Quote from: Scersk '97

Quote from: css228Also everyone is so high on Angello and Vanderlaan but those two are shooting at an unreal percentage this year. When Angello and Vanderlaan don't shoot at 16.7% and 14.3% respectively next year, everyone's going to wonder what happened when they should really just apply Occam's razor and realize that their true talent probably wasn't that high in the first place. I could see maybe Vanderlaan maintaining something in that range, but for the record, even an all time great goalscorer like Ovi only shoots at 12.3% year on year. You have to look at all time great snipers like Stamkos and Hull to see people with shooting percentages in the Angello range.

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

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

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

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

That's historical perspective.

Quote from: css228

Quote from: Scersk '97

Quote from: css228Also everyone is so high on Angello and Vanderlaan but those two are shooting at an unreal percentage this year. When Angello and Vanderlaan don't shoot at 16.7% and 14.3% respectively next year, everyone's going to wonder what happened when they should really just apply Occam's razor and realize that their true talent probably wasn't that high in the first place. I could see maybe Vanderlaan maintaining something in that range, but for the record, even an all time great goalscorer like Ovi only shoots at 12.3% year on year. You have to look at all time great snipers like Stamkos and Hull to see people with shooting percentages in the Angello range.

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Scersk '97

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

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

That's historical perspective.

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

Quote from: Dafatone

Quote from: css228

Quote from: Scersk '97

Quote from: css228Also everyone is so high on Angello and Vanderlaan but those two are shooting at an unreal percentage this year. When Angello and Vanderlaan don't shoot at 16.7% and 14.3% respectively next year, everyone's going to wonder what happened when they should really just apply Occam's razor and realize that their true talent probably wasn't that high in the first place. I could see maybe Vanderlaan maintaining something in that range, but for the record, even an all time great goalscorer like Ovi only shoots at 12.3% year on year. You have to look at all time great snipers like Stamkos and Hull to see people with shooting percentages in the Angello range.

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: css228What have you done for me lately? 6 seasons is a hell of a long time to be bad.

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Scersk '97

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

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

That's historical perspective.

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

Quote from: Scersk '97

Quote from: css228What have you done for me lately? 6 seasons is a hell of a long time to be bad.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: css228

Quote from: Scersk '97

Quote from: css228Also everyone is so high on Angello and Vanderlaan but those two are shooting at an unreal percentage this year. When Angello and Vanderlaan don't shoot at 16.7% and 14.3% respectively next year, everyone's going to wonder what happened when they should really just apply Occam's razor and realize that their true talent probably wasn't that high in the first place. I could see maybe Vanderlaan maintaining something in that range, but for the record, even an all time great goalscorer like Ovi only shoots at 12.3% year on year. You have to look at all time great snipers like Stamkos and Hull to see people with shooting percentages in the Angello range.

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Robb

Quote from: css228

Quote from: Scersk '97

Quote from: css228Also everyone is so high on Angello and Vanderlaan but those two are shooting at an unreal percentage this year. When Angello and Vanderlaan don't shoot at 16.7% and 14.3% respectively next year, everyone's going to wonder what happened when they should really just apply Occam's razor and realize that their true talent probably wasn't that high in the first place. I could see maybe Vanderlaan maintaining something in that range, but for the record, even an all time great goalscorer like Ovi only shoots at 12.3% year on year. You have to look at all time great snipers like Stamkos and Hull to see people with shooting percentages in the Angello range.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: css228

Quote from: Dafatone

Quote from: css228

Quote from: Scersk '97

Quote from: css228Also everyone is so high on Angello and Vanderlaan but those two are shooting at an unreal percentage this year. When Angello and Vanderlaan don't shoot at 16.7% and 14.3% respectively next year, everyone's going to wonder what happened when they should really just apply Occam's razor and realize that their true talent probably wasn't that high in the first place. I could see maybe Vanderlaan maintaining something in that range, but for the record, even an all time great goalscorer like Ovi only shoots at 12.3% year on year. You have to look at all time great snipers like Stamkos and Hull to see people with shooting percentages in the Angello range.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: css228

Quote from: Robb

Quote from: css228

Quote from: Scersk '97

Quote from: css228Also everyone is so high on Angello and Vanderlaan but those two are shooting at an unreal percentage this year. When Angello and Vanderlaan don't shoot at 16.7% and 14.3% respectively next year, everyone's going to wonder what happened when they should really just apply Occam's razor and realize that their true talent probably wasn't that high in the first place. I could see maybe Vanderlaan maintaining something in that range, but for the record, even an all time great goalscorer like Ovi only shoots at 12.3% year on year. You have to look at all time great snipers like Stamkos and Hull to see people with shooting percentages in the Angello range.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Dafatone

Quote from: css228

Quote from: Dafatone

Quote from: css228

Quote from: Scersk '97

Quote from: css228Also everyone is so high on Angello and Vanderlaan but those two are shooting at an unreal percentage this year. When Angello and Vanderlaan don't shoot at 16.7% and 14.3% respectively next year, everyone's going to wonder what happened when they should really just apply Occam's razor and realize that their true talent probably wasn't that high in the first place. I could see maybe Vanderlaan maintaining something in that range, but for the record, even an all time great goalscorer like Ovi only shoots at 12.3% year on year. You have to look at all time great snipers like Stamkos and Hull to see people with shooting percentages in the Angello range.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: RobbToo funny. All about what you spent and whether you were entertained - and how it's not conceit.

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Robb

Quote from: css228

Quote from: Robb

Quote from: css228

Quote from: Scersk '97

Quote from: css228Also everyone is so high on Angello and Vanderlaan but those two are shooting at an unreal percentage this year. When Angello and Vanderlaan don't shoot at 16.7% and 14.3% respectively next year, everyone's going to wonder what happened when they should really just apply Occam's razor and realize that their true talent probably wasn't that high in the first place. I could see maybe Vanderlaan maintaining something in that range, but for the record, even an all time great goalscorer like Ovi only shoots at 12.3% year on year. You have to look at all time great snipers like Stamkos and Hull to see people with shooting percentages in the Angello range.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: css228How is treating entertainment as an investment an illegitimate perspective.

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

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

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: css228How is treating entertainment as an investment an illegitimate perspective.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: css228Yeah but when the last time we've recruited a blue liner that is even remotely like Ghost in style of play. We don't because it doesn't fit Schafer's system.

2016? (http://bchl.ca/player?playerId=1336&season=25) I don't know about style of play, but 63 points in a 58-game season ain't exactly chopped liver.

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

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

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

Quote from: BearLover

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Dafatone

Quote from: BearLover

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: BearLoverSo I'm not content not being awesome.  If we're perpetually mediocre, I'll find some other hobbies to fill this time.

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

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

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

Quote from: KeithK

Quote from: BearLoverSo I'm not content not being awesome.  If we're perpetually mediocre, I'll find some other hobbies to fill this time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: CowbellGuyExpecting an NCAA appearance every other year is simply a hallucinogenic pipe dream, particularly for an Ivy League school.

Notice what Yale's been doing?

QuoteDartmouth just swept an on-fire Yale.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: BearLover

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: CowbellGuyExpecting an NCAA appearance every other year is simply a hallucinogenic pipe dream, particularly for an Ivy League school.

Notice what Yale's been doing?

QuoteDartmouth just swept an on-fire Yale.

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

Your last point is exactly on the money here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: KeithK

Quote from: BearLoverSo I'm not content not being awesome.  If we're perpetually mediocre, I'll find some other hobbies to fill this time.

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

This perspective conflicts with the one that you and css228 are describing where you'll go do something else if the team is sufficiently successful....

KeithK has gutted the whole discussion.  BearLover and css- by any definition you are fair-weather facetimers.  Keith, and the many here who have responded earlier or given up in the face of css's intransigence, are Lynah Faithful.

Quote from: abmarks

Quote from: KeithK

Quote from: BearLoverSo I'm not content not being awesome.  If we're perpetually mediocre, I'll find some other hobbies to fill this time.

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

This perspective conflicts with the one that you and css228 are describing where you'll go do something else if the team is sufficiently successful....

KeithK has gutted the whole discussion.  BearLover and css- by any definition you are fair-weather facetimers.  Keith, and the many here who have responded earlier or given up in the face of css's intransigence, are Lynah Faithful.

You don't care if the team wins, we get it.

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: abmarks

Quote from: KeithK

Quote from: BearLoverSo I'm not content not being awesome.  If we're perpetually mediocre, I'll find some other hobbies to fill this time.

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

This perspective conflicts with the one that you and css228 are describing where you'll go do something else if the team is sufficiently successful....

KeithK has gutted the whole discussion.  BearLover and css- by any definition you are fair-weather facetimers.  Keith, and the many here who have responded earlier or given up in the face of css's intransigence, are Lynah Faithful.

You don't care if the team wins, we get it.

Hardly.  I might be in favor of firing a crappy coach.  But unlike you who'd "find some other hobbies" I'd still go to as many games as I could get tickets for because I love college hockey and the school, regardless of team record.  You, however, will only be bothered to pay attention to a near-guaranteed winner.   (Even your attempts at insult are weak).

Quote from: abmarks

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: abmarks

Quote from: KeithK

Quote from: BearLoverSo I'm not content not being awesome.  If we're perpetually mediocre, I'll find some other hobbies to fill this time.

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

This perspective conflicts with the one that you and css228 are describing where you'll go do something else if the team is sufficiently successful....

KeithK has gutted the whole discussion.  BearLover and css- by any definition you are fair-weather facetimers.  Keith, and the many here who have responded earlier or given up in the face of css's intransigence, are Lynah Faithful.

You don't care if the team wins, we get it.

Hardly.  I might be in favor of firing a crappy coach.  But unlike you who'd "find some other hobbies" I'd still go to as many games as I could get tickets for because I love college hockey and the school, regardless of team record.  You, however, will only be bothered to pay attention to a near-guaranteed winner.   (Even your attempts at insult are weak).

I'll admit that if we suck for like a decade I might pay less attention.  But not by much; Cornell hockey is solidly my second favorite sports team (behind a certain lovable loser NY baseball franchise that actually almost won it all last year).  And as a fan of that franchise, I have a pretty thick skin when it comes to tolerating losses.

Just because someone is okay with Schafer's performance as of late doesn't mean they don't mind losing.  That's silly.

Quote from: abmarks

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: abmarks

Quote from: KeithK

Quote from: BearLoverSo I'm not content not being awesome.  If we're perpetually mediocre, I'll find some other hobbies to fill this time.

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

This perspective conflicts with the one that you and css228 are describing where you'll go do something else if the team is sufficiently successful....

KeithK has gutted the whole discussion.  BearLover and css- by any definition you are fair-weather facetimers.  Keith, and the many here who have responded earlier or given up in the face of css's intransigence, are Lynah Faithful.

You don't care if the team wins, we get it.

Hardly.  I might be in favor of firing a crappy coach.  But unlike you who'd "find some other hobbies" I'd still go to as many games as I could get tickets for because I love college hockey and the school, regardless of team record.  You, however, will only be bothered to pay attention to a near-guaranteed winner.   (Even your attempts at insult are weak).

Or we can refrain from the ad hominem altogether. My point is I live hundreds of miles south of Upstate NY now. In order to completely follow Cornell, I have to put in a fair amount of money into various fragmented streaming packages. That's not really worthwhile when I just come away angry at the product on the ice. That doesn't mean I care any less about Cornell Hockey. I WAS THE FRICKIN COWBELL GUY FOR TWO YEARS. I wouldn't have done that if I was the fair weather face-timer you accuse me of being.

All I'm saying is that at some point, and that point is different for everyone, the commitment you have to make just isn't worthwhile for the product you put out there. I'm using myself as a very real example of something thats happening en masse. It's not a coincidence that attendance has been dropping since the beginning of this decade. We all agree that is happening. It's directly tied to the fact that we don't put a good product on the ice. You may not care about the money you're putting down for this team, but students will.

Every year I heard students who loved hockey and going to hockey games say the tickets were too expensive to justify, especially given the quality of the team. These were people that would go whenever they had the chance to get a free or discounted ticket from someone. If the tradition really matters to you, then you should care about the mire of mediocrity that we're in, because it has consequences to the health of the program and Cornell hockey experience far beyond being slightly disappointed.

Quote from: css228

Quote from: Scersk '97For "bad," see Clarkson or RPI, once proud programs that have fallen on really tough times. Clarkson hasn't made the semis since 2007, and RPI (2002) is "on the clock."

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

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

Let me say it one more time: you lack historical perspective. RPI has won two national championships, with the most recent won more recently (1985) than our last one; Clarkson is one of the winningest programs all-time in college hockey and has been an unfortunate also-ran a few times, the last time (1970) to us!

If you think the expectations at Clarkson or RPI are lower than they are at Cornell, you're either ignorant or some sort of idiot elitist. At this point, I'll go with both.

I'm done feeding the trolls, now. Done. I refer the right honorable gentleman to what abmarks wrote.

IINM his contract is up.  He doesn't need to be "fired," just not rehired.  This was also the year his youngest graduated from IHS, so there are several moving parts.  He may have other plans.

From what I have heard, I think it is a given that he will receive an offer of an extension.  It will be interesting to see how long that is for.  I doubt someone with Schafer's resume would accept a Tom Lasorda year-to-year contract, but it will say quite a bit whether he's offered say 3 or 5.

Quote from: Scersk '97

Quote from: css228

Quote from: Scersk '97For "bad," see Clarkson or RPI, once proud programs that have fallen on really tough times. Clarkson hasn't made the semis since 2007, and RPI (2002) is "on the clock."

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

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

Let me say it one more time: you lack historical perspective. RPI has won two national championships, with the most recent won more recently (1985) than our last one; Clarkson is one of the winningest programs all-time in college hockey and has been an unfortunate also-ran a few times, the last time (1970) to us!

If you think the expectations at Clarkson or RPI are lower than they are at Cornell, you're either ignorant or some sort of idiot elitist. At this point, I'll go with both.

I'm done feeding the trolls, now. Done. I refer the right honorable gentleman to what abmarks wrote.

Glad to see your Cornell education taught you how to appropriately handle a difference of opinion.

Quote from: BearLover

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

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

Yale has made the NCAAs 6 of the last 8 years and won a national championship.  Q has made the NCAAs four years in a row and was a national championship finalist.  They were also #1 for much of that time.  Both could win it all this year.  Union had a 4-year stretch when they made the NCAAs every year, won the ECAC tournament three times, finished first in the ECAC three times, and won a national championship.  They're the only one of these three programs to have shown any signs of slipping.  At no point during Schafer's tenure did Cornell have an 8-year or 4-year stretch this good, nor did they ever get this far in the NCAAs.  It's certainly possible to do much better than we're doing.

A while ago I asked if finding the great coach was so easy, then which of the ECAC school's coaches would fit that profile? People complain & complain, but no one can come with a group of coaches that they would like. Complain if you like, but if you can't show me that list, then maybe it's a lot harder to get that coach.

And who is the current Ghost player that we missed? Rather than just complain, show us who you think we missed in coaches and players.

Goddamn you people like talking in circles.

For all those who would love to see Schafer leave after this season, here's something else to think about.

Perhaps in professional sports all that matters is a coach's win/loss record. But this isn't professional sports. Schafer is coaching student athletes. I think many people would agree that a big part of his job is making sure that his guys do well in their classes, stay out of trouble, and complete their studies successfully. Do I think Coach Schafer is giving lectures in Managerial Accounting on the team bus? I do not. But he must be doing something right because his players are, I believe almost without exception, earning their Cornell degrees (unless they turn pro before doing so.) And unless I'm mistaken the team is often one of the top teams at Cornell in the competition they have within the varsity teams for best overall GPA.

The results of the recruiting efforts, and the coaching that impacts how many pucks wind up in the back of our net vs the back of their nets is only one part of the job. No matter what you think of how well he's doing that one (and many of us think he's doing it quite well), let's not forget the other one, which by all accounts seems to be one in which Mike Schafer is without question excelling.

Quote from: css228Or we can refrain from the ad hominem altogether.

I was specifically trying to choose my words to avoid having my post appear as an ad hominem. (I realize you may or may not have directed that at me as well.)

Quote from: css228All I'm saying is that at some point, and that point is different for everyone, the commitment you have to make just isn't worthwhile for the product you put out there. I'm using myself as a very real example of something thats happening en masse.

Yes, everyone has a different point. For a lot of the casual fans it's really easy to stop caring. Heck, most students probably stop caring about Cornell hockey the last time they walk out of Lynah.  Always has been that way; maybe it's even more so these days with lots of different entertainment options. It was just noteworthy to me that someone who is such a hockey fan would be willing to stop caring so easily. Then again, you're still posting here so maybe you're just venting your frustration and we'll be having debates about analytics with you ten years from now.

Quote from: Jim HylaA while ago I asked if finding the great coach was so easy, then which of the ECAC school's coaches would fit that profile? People complain & complain, but no one can come with a group of coaches that they would like. Complain if you like, but if you can't show me that list, then maybe it's a lot harder to get that coach.

I suspect certain folks would point to the jackass in Hamden or the team in New Haven as better coaches based on the results. Not that we'd ever get them even if we wanted them. It's still reasonable to complain about our coaches even when you don't necessarily have a set of replacements in mind. We're fans, not AD's.

That said, the likelihood of finding a good head coach is entirely relevant to the question of whether the school should get a new one.  The last time Cornell there was a clear candidate who had coaching success and clear reason to want to come to Ithaca.  (The program also appeared to be in a much deeper hole than it is in today, but that's beside the point.)  Is there anyone out there who would fit that profile?  At one point some of us here though Casey Jones was an obvious choice but he hasn't exactly torn it up in Potsdam. Any other Cornell alums out there coaching?  Not that this would be a requirement but it certainly would help.

Quote from: andyw2100For all those who would love to see Schafer leave after this season, here's something else to think about.

Perhaps in professional sports all that matters is a coach's win/loss record. But this isn't professional sports. Schafer is coaching student athletes. I think many people would agree that a big part of his job is making sure that his guys do well in their classes, stay out of trouble, and complete their studies successfully. Do I think Coach Schafer is giving lectures in Managerial Accounting on the team bus? I do not. But he must be doing something right because his players are, I believe almost without exception, earning their Cornell degrees (unless they turn pro before doing so.) And unless I'm mistaken the team is often one of the top teams at Cornell in the competition they have within the varsity teams for best overall GPA.

The results of the recruiting efforts, and the coaching that impacts how many pucks wind up in the back of our net vs the back of their nets is only one part of the job. No matter what you think of how well he's doing that one (and many of us think he's doing it quite well), let's not forget the other one, which by all accounts seems to be one in which Mike Schafer is without question excelling.

Well, there you go again -pointing out what the program is really all about. How dare you not put the emphasis on winning and goals scored and NCAA appearances etc., etc. etc.

Quote from: KeithKAny other Cornell alums out there coaching?

There's only one I know of off top of my head. Dan Ratushny

Quote from: toddlose

Quote from: KeithKAny other Cornell alums out there coaching?

There's only one I know of off top of my head. Dan Ratushny

Doug!

Quote from: toddlose

Quote from: KeithKAny other Cornell alums out there coaching?

There's only one I know of off top of my head. Dan Ratushny

Well, his program seems to be in decline as well after some fabulous years.

I think the basic question is what accounts for the past 4-5 years of mediocre results, is it a bad recruiting class or two that didn't pan out as expected, or is it something more structural in the program, such that Yale and QU's recent dominance isn't just a blip but something more longterm.

Quote from: css228my opinion is if you're not in a position to get an at large bid, you didn't have a good season.

Got it, glad you're on record. Cornell is still alive for an at-large bid. B-]

A year after a 11-14-6 season, we turn in a 16-11-7 season with a more difficult schedule. I see that as a positive step for a team few had high expectations for. Grabbing 1 or 2 more points in the regular season has us avoid Hamden, and probably moves the at-large chance closer to a 50-50 proposition.

An at-large bid is unlikely, yes, but when a team that is eliminated before championship weekend is still in the conversation, I'd say that says something, and it's not "mediocrity." Yale won their 2013 Championship with more losses than 2016 Cornell has. This is a good team. Not great, but good. With the development of young talent, I can see this team returning to the upper tier. For now, we're one step down. That happens, and it's OK. Ask Michigan, BU, and Minnesota. (OK, on second thought, don't ask Minnesota fans)

Reading through this thread, the thing that strikes me is the ease at throwing around the word "mediocre." In this section of the team's era, Cornell has remained in the top 1/3 of teams nationally. That's something that few schools can boast. Not Vermont, not RPI, New Hampshire, or Clarkson. These are our peers in terms of what hockey means to the culture of the institution. I know I come from a different era as css228, but I don't see how being in the top 20 nationally can be called "mediocre" so casually.

Look, at some point, there will be a time when it's time to move on. It was so even for an all-time legend like Richie Moran in Lacrosse. I'll accept when one party and/or the other decides that it's time. But I'm pretty glad that it's not up to the barkings on a pretty meaningless fan forum. That said, I do appreciate the general discourse and am glad to have differing opinions here.

Quote from: RichH

Quote from: css228my opinion is if you're not in a position to get an at large bid, you didn't have a good season.

Got it, glad you're on record. Cornell is still alive for an at-large bid. B-]

A year after a 11-14-6 season, we turn in a 16-11-7 season with a more difficult schedule. I see that as a positive step for a team few had high expectations for. Grabbing 1 or 2 more points in the regular season has us avoid Hamden, and probably moves the at-large chance closer to a 50-50 proposition.

An at-large bid is unlikely, yes, but when a team that is eliminated before championship weekend is still in the conversation, I'd say that says something, and it's not "mediocrity." Yale won their 2013 Championship with more losses than 2016 Cornell has. This is a good team. Not great, but good. With the development of young talent, I can see this team returning to the upper tier. For now, we're one step down. That happens, and it's OK. Ask Michigan, BU, and Minnesota. (OK, on second thought, don't ask Minnesota fans)

Reading through this thread, the thing that strikes me is the ease at throwing around the word "mediocre." In this section of the team's era, Cornell has remained in the top 1/3 of teams nationally. That's something that few schools can boast. Not Vermont, not RPI, New Hampshire, or Clarkson. These are our peers in terms of what hockey means to the culture of the institution. I know I come from a different era as css228, but I don't see how being in the top 20 nationally can be called "mediocre" so casually.

Look, at some point, there will be a time when it's time to move on. It was so even for an all-time legend like Richie Moran in Lacrosse. I'll accept when one party and/or the other decides that it's time. But I'm pretty glad that it's not up to the barkings on a pretty meaningless fan forum. That said, I do appreciate the general discourse and am glad to have differing opinions here.

Simple. I'm not judging us by our record. I'm judging us by our 49% CF in close situations. Good teams are positive possession teams. If you are under 50% possession you are mediocre. Our record, as I have said multiple times, was driven by an unrealistic PDO in the 1st half of the season. When you look at our advanced stats (http://www.collegehockeynews.com/stats/) we're in the same league as UNO, Bentley, UND, Wisconsin, Miami etc. Some of those teams have good records, some don't, but none are great teams. Great teams have possession stats like Quinnipiac, North Dakota, Providence. In fact none of the top 5 teams in the pairwise is below 50% in CF in close situations. I care about process, and our process is bad/not repeatable.

I should add that if you have a good process, more often than not you will make the postseason. I'd be annoyed at missing the postseason with a team with 55% CF close, but in a ~30 game season weird things happen.

Also KeithK, my ad hominem comment wasn't directed at you. You've been nothing but respectful and while I disagree with you I've found your perspective interesting.

Quote from: RichHAn at-large bid is unlikely, yes, but when a team that is eliminated before championship weekend is still in the conversation, I'd say that says something, and it's not "mediocrity." Yale won their 2013 Championship with more losses than 2016 Cornell has. This is a good team. Not great, but good.

Currently we are sitting at 16 in PWR.  We finished last season at 17.  For comparison, in 2007 and 2008 we finished at 22 (http://www.tbrw.info/?/tbrw_Indexes/final_PWR_Index.html).  Whether or not there is a systemic problem amounts to where we go from here.  If we continue to move back up towards (and into) the top 10, this will be seen as a transitional period, like 1998-2001.  If not...

Quote from: css228Simple. I'm not judging us by our record. I'm judging us by our 49% CF in close situations. Good teams are positive possession teams. If you are under 50% possession you are mediocre.

I respect that you value the advanced metrics. However, I feel that at this level with such a large disparity and range in skill, these metrics just aren't as useful as they probably are in the NHL. In the end, the scoreboard is all that matters to most people. If to you a team with 49.9% is mediocre and a team at 50.1% is good, then a team 60% must be fantastic. The national leader in CF close, 10% above your "mediocrity cliff" point is sitting at #24 in PWR.  Not to mention CF% doesn't necessarily translate to possession, especially at this level. Shooting isn't the only skill.

Another thing to consider.  Some of the teams above us are taking big hits in graduation this year.

Here are the graduating seniors with their rank in the top 25 of 2016 ECAC scoring:

Qpc: St. Denis (4)
Yal: Wilson (11)
Hvd: Vesey (1), Criscuolo (7)
SLU: Thompson (21), Ward (22)
Clk:
RPI:
Drt: Barre (6), Patterson (20)
Cor:

Here are juniors in the top 25; no idea on their flight risk.

Qpc: Tim Clifton (2), Anas (3), Toews (9)
Yal:
Hvd: Kerfoot (5)
SLU: Bayreuther (8), Smolcynski (15)
Clk:
RPI:
Drt:
Cor:

Teams in that group losing their primary goalie (with Sv% rank in conference):

Qpc: Garteig (1)
Yal:
Hvd:
SLU:
Clk: Lewis (4)
RPI: Kasdorf (7)
Drt: Grant (9)
Cor:

tl;dr: Harvard takes a big hit.  Q takes a big hit and could be utterly devastated (this is a reason to root for Q to win the NC$$ if we don't).  Everyone has at least one important graduation except us.

Quote from: TrotskyAnother thing to consider.  Some of the teams above us are taking big hits in graduation this year.

Here are the graduating seniors with their rank in the top 25 of 2016 ECAC scoring:

Qpc: St. Denis (4)
Yal: Wilson (11)
Hvd: Vesey (1), Criscuolo (7)
SLU: Thompson (21), Ward (22)
Clk:
RPI:
Drt: Barre (6), Patterson (20)
Cor:

Here are juniors in the top 25; no idea on their flight risk.

Qpc: Tim Clifton (2), Anas (3), Toews (9)
Yal:
Hvd: Kerfoot (5)
SLU: Bayreuther (8), Smolcynski (15)
Clk:
RPI:
Drt:
Cor:

Teams in that group losing their primary goalie (with Sv% rank in conference):

Qpc: Garteig (1)
Yal:
Hvd:
SLU:
Clk: Lewis (4)
RPI: Kasdorf (7)
Drt: Grant (9)
Cor:

tl;dr: Harvard takes a big hit.  Q takes a big hit and could be utterly devastated (this is a reason to root for Q to win the NC$$ if we don't).  Everyone has at least one important graduation except us.

Thought I saw kasdorf has one more year of eligibility? I may be wrong but swore I saw it somewhere. Unless I missed him signing.

Quote from: RichH

Quote from: css228Simple. I'm not judging us by our record. I'm judging us by our 49% CF in close situations. Good teams are positive possession teams. If you are under 50% possession you are mediocre.

I respect that you value the advanced metrics. However, I feel that at this level with such a large disparity and range in skill, these metrics just aren't as useful as they probably are in the NHL. In the end, the scoreboard is all that matters to most people. If to you a team with 49.9% is mediocre and a team at 50.1% is good, then a team 60% must be fantastic. The national leader in CF close, 10% above your "mediocrity cliff" point is sitting at #24 in PWR.  Not to mention CF% doesn't necessarily translate to possession, especially at this level. Shooting isn't the only skill.

That's my biggest question with using advanced metrics.  It may be that the data is gettinggood enough at the NHL level to have solid predictive capability (I don't follow that aspect well enough to know).  But you have to be wary about applying the same conclusions to a different level with, as RichH says, a greater variation in talent levels. The qualitative trends are unlikely to change (possession better than not, for instance) but the numbers probably do.

For instance, one point that's been discussed is shot percentage. Looking at the top 50 scorers in the NCAA this year, 27 of them have shot percentages over 15% and 16 are over 18%. This could just be a reflection of small sample sizes because of fewer games. A quick scan of some of previous years for those guys shows some variability. But I suspect that the spread in "true talent" on this metric will be greater in college. If nothing else, the talent level of the opposing goalies has a bigger spread.

Quote from: toddloseThought I saw kasdorf has one more year of eligibility? I may be wrong but swore I saw it somewhere. Unless I missed him signing.

He may.  Ralph will certainly know.

Quote from: toddloseThought I saw kasdorf has one more year of eligibility? I may be wrong but swore I saw it somewhere. Unless I missed him signing.

I believe he missed almost an entire year, so he's possibly coming back for a post-grad year with a medical redshirt. It's not a done deal though.

Quote from: pfibiger

Quote from: toddloseThought I saw kasdorf has one more year of eligibility? I may be wrong but swore I saw it somewhere. Unless I missed him signing.

I believe he missed almost an entire year, so he's possibly coming back for a post-grad year with a medical redshirt. It's not a done deal though.

At RPI's gathering at The Nines, Seth Appert's Hair said he's coming back for another year as a graduate student.

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: toddloseThought I saw kasdorf has one more year of eligibility? I may be wrong but swore I saw it somewhere. Unless I missed him signing.

He may.  Ralph will certainly know.

He does have another year but I think it would be foolish for him to wait if he can negotiate a signing bonus.  He has had significant injury issues.  I wish him a long and prosperous career but he may be too fragile for that.  It makes sense for him to sign.

Quote from: marty

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: toddloseThought I saw kasdorf has one more year of eligibility? I may be wrong but swore I saw it somewhere. Unless I missed him signing.

He may.  Ralph will certainly know.

He does have another year but I think it would be foolish for him to wait if he can negotiate a signing bonus.  He has had significant injury issues.  I wish him a long and prosperous career but he may be too fragile for that.  It makes sense for him to sign.

Just reported on Twitter that Kasdorf signed with the Sabres

https://twitter.com/BuffaloSabres/status/709522368159473665

He's married?

Quote from: TrotskyHe's married?

I think he and his wife are expecting their first child.

Quote from: marty

Quote from: TrotskyHe's married?

I think he and his wife are expecting their first child.

Oof.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/84/10/f1/8410f14dac4932fea001ba2154b2fd51.jpg

"Too much, too soon."

Murray or Derraugh?:-D

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: toddloseThought I saw kasdorf has one more year of eligibility? I may be wrong but swore I saw it somewhere. Unless I missed him signing.

He may.  Ralph will certainly know.

It's been answered, but since you asked me:

He was a Senior but got a medical redshirt from his soph season when he only played in two games. Although he said when asked during the year that he had not made up his mind whether he would return, no one expected him back. A telling factor is that the goalie who was recruited for next season, Chase Perry, is a transfer from Colorado College who would lose another season of eligibility if he was delayed until 2017.

He is indeed married with a child on the way.

If I were a college hockey player, I would prefer to play on a team that focused more on creative offense than on a structured and disciplined defense.  Further, its more fun to score goals than it is to block shots.


Despite that, I predict Schafer will be re-hired.

It should be noted that despite my displeasure with the past few years, I like Schafer.  I want to see him win; part of the reason I pull so strongly for Cornell is because I think he deserves it.  He means a lot to Cornell Hockey--and that only makes the recent mediocre seasons tougher to swallow.  It's not mutually exclusive, however, for him to also not be the best coach for the program.  Realistically, though, he isn't going anywhere, and if the ship is in fact sinking, I'm ready to go down with it...

Quote from: BearLoverIt should be noted that despite my displeasure with the past few years, I like Schafer.  I want to see him win; part of the reason I pull so strongly for Cornell is because I think he deserves it.  He means a lot to Cornell Hockey--and that only makes the recent mediocre seasons tougher to swallow.  It's not mutually exclusive, however, for him to also not be the best coach for the program.  Realistically, though, he isn't going anywhere, and if the ship is in fact sinking, I'm ready to go down with it...

The ship is not sinking.  We're the first team out of the NC$$ this year.  While this (http://www.tbrw.info/?/cornell_History/cornell_Overall_Over_500.html) looks like a steady decline, it should also be noted that in 21 seasons Schafer has coached 10 worse than or equal to this year.  The thing we haven't done since 2008-10 is follow up an improvement with another improvement.  We finished with almost the same record (http://www.tbrw.info/?/cornell_History/cornell_Records_All_Seasons.html) we had in 2008 overall record-wise, but because of the overall improvement of the conference we finished in 8th rather than 5th (http://www.tbrw.info/?/cornell_History/cornell_RS_Bargraph.html).

I think we have a good core to build around, and while I will miss the seniors we were not hit the way some of our rivals will be.  We're in an era with a very strong ECAC, so whereas in the past we had to be the best in the league by far to have a shot in the NC$$, now we really need only crack the top 3 -- something that is in reach.

Quote from: TrotskyWe're in an era with a very strong ECAC, so whereas in the past we had to be the best in the league by far to have a shot in the NC$$, now we really need only crack the top 3 -- something that is in reach.

Back when the WCHA was dominating, it would have been a joke to say that the 8th place ECAC team was still alive for an at large bid while idle championship weekend. The league has come a long way. Rising tide lifts all boats, etc.

Quote from: Chris '03Rising tide lifts all boats, etc.

This has been debated ad nauseam, but now we have some more data points, so I'll ask again: how has this "rising tide" lifted Cornell's boat?  Our best teams, and our best chances at winning an ECAC and national championship, were when the conference was bad.  There's nothing to suggest our talent is better now, and we're clearly making the NCAAs and the final weekend of the ECAC less.  Every season there's an argument about firing our coach.  So, I want to know: how has Cornell benefited from Q and Yale whooping our asses every year?

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: Chris '03Rising tide lifts all boats, etc.

This has been debated ad nauseam, but now we have some more data points, so I'll ask again: how has this "rising tide" lifted Cornell's boat?  Our best teams, and our best chances at winning an ECAC and national championship, were when the conference was bad.  There's nothing to suggest our talent is better now, and we're clearly making the NCAAs and the final weekend of the ECAC less.  Every season there's an argument about firing our coach.  So, I want to know: how has Cornell benefited from Q and Yale whooping our asses every year?

The scariest thing about getting whooped is that the fans are not showing up because of it. Lynah was our main recruiting advantage. That said when does Schafer become accountable? Currently we have made the tournament 1 time in 6 years. Considering 27% of teams make the tourney we are accepting mediocrity if we consider the results acceptable. That may be the case, but it's a hard pill to swallow for such a proud program.

Quote from: cuhockey93

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: Chris '03Rising tide lifts all boats, etc.

This has been debated ad nauseam, but now we have some more data points, so I'll ask again: how has this "rising tide" lifted Cornell's boat?  Our best teams, and our best chances at winning an ECAC and national championship, were when the conference was bad.  There's nothing to suggest our talent is better now, and we're clearly making the NCAAs and the final weekend of the ECAC less.  Every season there's an argument about firing our coach.  So, I want to know: how has Cornell benefited from Q and Yale whooping our asses every year?

The scariest thing about getting whooped is that the fans are not showing up because of it. Lynah was our main recruiting advantage. That said when does Schafer become accountable? Currently we have made the tournament 1 time in 6 years. Considering 27% of teams make the tourney we are accepting mediocrity if we consider the results acceptable. That may be the case, but it's a hard pill to swallow for such a proud program.

That's something I forgot to mention in my post: the Lynah Faithful, at least in part because we don't win as much anymore, is a shell of its former self.

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: Chris '03Rising tide lifts all boats, etc.

This has been debated ad nauseam, but now we have some more data points, so I'll ask again: how has this "rising tide" lifted Cornell's boat?  Our best teams, and our best chances at winning an ECAC and national championship, were when the conference was bad.  There's nothing to suggest our talent is better now, and we're clearly making the NCAAs and the final weekend of the ECAC less.  Every season there's an argument about firing our coach.  So, I want to know: how has Cornell benefited from Q and Yale whooping our asses every year?

Cornell benefits in two ways: First, the strong ECAC means that we almost made the tournament after finishing 8th in the league. Better teams in the league means better SoS means better tournament position.  Second, playing in a stronger league means that you're consistently playing better competition, which prepares the team for the tournament if and when we get in.  For years we worried about this on here, especially in years where the out of conference slate looked weak; I don't think this is much of an issue right now.

I think the better league is very much a good thing for Cornell.  But you still have to win, which we didn't do enough of this year.

Quote from: BearLoverIt should be noted that despite my displeasure with the past few years, I like Schafer.  I want to see him win; part of the reason I pull so strongly for Cornell is because I think he deserves it.  He means a lot to Cornell Hockey--and that only makes the recent mediocre seasons tougher to swallow.  It's not mutually exclusive, however, for him to also not be the best coach for the program.  Realistically, though, he isn't going anywhere, and if the ship is in fact sinking, I'm ready to go down with it...

I think this was very much worth posting and noting.  The back and forth arguments we've had on here have often been pretty negative. It's worth remembering that most of the folks who post on here aren't a bunch of internet trolls.  We all want Cornell to win (a few of our valued guests aside :-)) and just have different opinions on the best way to have that happen.

Quote from: KeithK

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: Chris '03Rising tide lifts all boats, etc.

This has been debated ad nauseam, but now we have some more data points, so I'll ask again: how has this "rising tide" lifted Cornell's boat?  Our best teams, and our best chances at winning an ECAC and national championship, were when the conference was bad.  There's nothing to suggest our talent is better now, and we're clearly making the NCAAs and the final weekend of the ECAC less.  Every season there's an argument about firing our coach.  So, I want to know: how has Cornell benefited from Q and Yale whooping our asses every year?

Cornell benefits in two ways: First, the strong ECAC means that we almost made the tournament after finishing 8th in the league. Better teams in the league means better SoS means better tournament position.  Second, playing in a stronger league means that you're consistently playing better competition, which prepares the team for the tournament if and when we get in.  For years we worried about this on here, especially in years where the out of conference slate looked weak; I don't think this is much of an issue right now.

I think the better league is very much a good thing for Cornell.  But you still have to win, which we didn't do enough of this year.

Well,
1. There's a reason why we didn't win.  It's because the league is better.
2. I still think it was considerably easier to make the tournament before, even accounting for our better SOS these days.  Too small a sample to say for sure, but early signs point to that being the case.  Don't forget an automatic ECAC bid is way more likely when the conference stinks.  
3. We almost made the tournament despite a .500 in-league record largely because we went 5-1-1 against difficult opposition out-of-league.  
4. Relatedly, Cornell can schedule strong out-of-conference opponents to prepare itself for the NCAAs.  

The benefits of a strong league that you noted are real, but I think they are relatively minor.  Anything can happen in the NCAAs.  You just need to get in.

Was Cornell's OOC slate that impressive? Final PWR:
58
58
8
4
31
38
38

Eight ECAC teams were top 25.

We've gone from a situation (http://www.tbrw.info/?/ncaa_Tournament/ecac_NCAA_Bargraph.html) where the conference was only getting 2 teams to the tourney with an outside shot at 3 to one in which it's now getting 3 with an outside shot at 4.

ECAC Bids by year (since adoption of 16-team tourney)

Yr ECAC Teams
-- ---
03 2
04 1
05 3
06 2
07 2
08 2
09 3
10 2
11 3
12 2
13 3
14 3
15 3
16 3

ECAC teams are also getting farther now than before.

Yr SF!
-- ---
02 000
03 100
04 000
05 000
06 000
07 000
08 000
09 000
10 000
11 000
12 100
13 221
14 111
15 000
16 ???

I believe this will translate to a good effect for Cornell over time.  We just happen to have hit a down period that exactly correlates to the league strengthening (maybe coincidentally, more likely not).

Seems to me that this is an amplifier: if you're good the improvement puts you in an even better position to go deep; if you're not then the mountain gets steeper.  We've traditionally been good, over a long, long period (almost the entire history of the conference), with a few brief interludes of mediocrity (and almost no periods of outright badness) (http://www.tbrw.info/?/ecac_History/ecac_RS_Thirds_Charts.htm), so unless something has systemically changed for us relative to the rest of the league, in the long run this should be A Good Thing for us more than any other conference program.

That second chart is misleading in not showing first round NCAA success.  Cornell has been very successful in the opening round under Schafer.  They've been 1 goal away from the Frozen Four so many times, and 1 goal away from the finals once, that I find it very hard to believe that Cornell will be in a better chance to win it all in the future than it was when the ECAC stunk.  Yale's and Union's miracle runs don't suddenly make it that Cornell wasn't a few bounces away from playing for the title on a number of occasions.  

This is important: Cornell was ~.500 in the NCAAs when the ECAC stunk.  .500!  You can't honestly expect a better record than that when you're playing against the very best teams in the country.  It simply isn't true that Cornell was completely outmatched back then.  We held our own.  And we certainly look no better when we play BU, Prov, etc. now.

Quote from: drs48It astounds me that "Faithful" are accepting/defending mediocrity, I'm done......fire him.

+1

Quote from: drs48It astounds me that "Faithful" are accepting/defending mediocrity, I'm done......fire him.

At a bare minimum, I would insist on new asst/assoc coaches to bring new ideas/strategies & recruiting possibilities into the mix....   If Schafer refuses, show him the door!

Quote from: BearLoverYale's and Union's miracle runs don't suddenly make it that Cornell wasn't a few bounces away from playing for the title on a number of occasions.

Yale's run was a miracle.  Union's wasn't -- they were the best team in the country that year.

We won't be able to compare apples to apples until Cornell hits a good stretch with the league also strong.  So let's do that.  ;-)

Quote from: redice

Quote from: drs48It astounds me that "Faithful" are accepting/defending mediocrity, I'm done......fire him.

At a bare minimum, I would insist on new asst/assoc coaches to bring new ideas/strategies & recruiting possibilities into the mix....   If Schafer refuses, show him the door!

Yes, exactly, we have to get rid of the bums that brought us Angelo, Vandelaan, etc. and get some recruits that can lift the team to another level. Ben was so obviously ineffective at Q too! ::nut::

Quote from: marty

Quote from: redice

Quote from: drs48It astounds me that "Faithful" are accepting/defending mediocrity, I'm done......fire him.

At a bare minimum, I would insist on new asst/assoc coaches to bring new ideas/strategies & recruiting possibilities into the mix....   If Schafer refuses, show him the door!

Yes, exactly, we have to get rid of the bums that brought us Angelo, Vandelaan, etc. and get some recruits that can lift the team to another level. Ben was so obviously ineffective at Q too! ::nut::

KeithK:  This is exactly the kind of shit I was referring to!!!   Marty, you don't have to agree with me...  But, you also don't have to be so fucking sarcastic about it....     Maybe Angello & Vanderlaan are good freshman....   But, the results with those good freshmen are still mediocre.....

Furthermore, if you weren't in such a hurry to jump me with your sarcastic shit, maybe you would take the time to spell their names correctly....Geez!!!   Get over yourself!!!!

Quote from: redice

Quote from: marty

Quote from: redice

Quote from: drs48It astounds me that "Faithful" are accepting/defending mediocrity, I'm done......fire him.

At a bare minimum, I would insist on new asst/assoc coaches to bring new ideas/strategies & recruiting possibilities into the mix....   If Schafer refuses, show him the door!

Yes, exactly, we have to get rid of the bums that brought us Angelo, Vandelaan, etc. and get some recruits that can lift the team to another level. Ben was so obviously ineffective at Q too! ::nut::

KeithK:  This is exactly the kind of shit I was referring to!!!   Marty, you don't have to agree with me...  But, you also don't have to be so fucking sarcastic about it....     Maybe Angello & Vanderlaan are good freshman....   But, the results with those good freshmen are still mediocre.....

Furthermore, if you weren't in such a hurry to jump me with your sarcastic shit, maybe you would take the time to spell their names correctly....Geez!!!   Get over yourself!!!!

In addition to the attitude, his logic is faulty.  Citing a couple of successful recruits while ignoring the greater number of duds isn't going to convince anybody.

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: redice

Quote from: marty

Quote from: redice

Quote from: drs48It astounds me that "Faithful" are accepting/defending mediocrity, I'm done......fire him.

At a bare minimum, I would insist on new asst/assoc coaches to bring new ideas/strategies & recruiting possibilities into the mix....   If Schafer refuses, show him the door!

Yes, exactly, we have to get rid of the bums that brought us Angelo, Vandelaan, etc. and get some recruits that can lift the team to another level. Ben was so obviously ineffective at Q too! ::nut::

KeithK:  This is exactly the kind of shit I was referring to!!!   Marty, you don't have to agree with me...  But, you also don't have to be so fucking sarcastic about it....     Maybe Angello & Vanderlaan are good freshman....   But, the results with those good freshmen are still mediocre.....

Furthermore, if you weren't in such a hurry to jump me with your sarcastic shit, maybe you would take the time to spell their names correctly....Geez!!!   Get over yourself!!!!

In addition to the attitude, his logic is faulty.  Citing a couple of successful recruits while ignoring the greater number of duds isn't going to convince anybody.

I think it's worth pointing out that we did have a better season (using PWR, KRACH or RPI) than 75% of the other teams playing D-1 NCAA hockey.  The sky is not falling.

Quote from: jkahnI think it's worth pointing out that we did have a better season (using PWR, KRACH or RPI) than 75% of the other teams playing D-1 NCAA hockey.  The sky is not falling.

I think there are 3 things going on that make it feel worse than one would get from an objective review of this year's record.

1. We haven't made the NCAAs for four straight seasons -- an entire graduating class.  To those of us who remember the 4, 6, and 8 team tourneys that doesn't seem that long, but with a 16-team tourney one should expect Cornell to make the tourney about 50% of the time.  The fact that we were the first team cropped twice in those four years doesn't change the fact that we have no NC$$ games over that stretch, which is disturbing.

2. The 2015 graduating class was awesomely talented and by every measure I think we all agree they greatly underachieved.  Whatever that was -- chemistry, maturity, work ethic, The System -- it makes us worry that even if we get talent it may not convert to wins.

3. The particular contour of this year, an amazing start and then a long, depressing collapse, left everybody with a bad taste in their mouth.

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: jkahnI think it's worth pointing out that we did have a better season (using PWR, KRACH or RPI) than 75% of the other teams playing D-1 NCAA hockey.  The sky is not falling.

I think there are 3 things going on that make it feel worse than one would get from an objective review of this year's record.

1. We haven't made the NCAAs for four straight seasons -- an entire graduating class.  To those of us who remember the 4, 6, and 8 team tourneys that doesn't seem that long, but with a 16-team tourney one should expect Cornell to make the tourney about 50% of the time.  The fact that we were the first team cropped twice in those four years doesn't change the fact that we have no NC$$ games over that stretch, which is disturbing.

2. The 2015 graduating class was awesomely talented and by every measure I think we all agree they greatly underachieved.  Whatever that was -- chemistry, maturity, work ethic, The System -- it makes us worry that even if we get talent it may not convert to wins.

3. The particular contour of this year, an amazing start and then a long, depressing collapse, left everybody with a bad taste in their mouth.

I'll admit seeing section B only 2/3's full for a playoff game has caused me to think with emotions and not my head

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: jkahnI think it's worth pointing out that we did have a better season (using PWR, KRACH or RPI) than 75% of the other teams playing D-1 NCAA hockey.  The sky is not falling.

I think there are 3 things going on that make it feel worse than one would get from an objective review of this year's record.

1. We haven't made the NCAAs for four straight seasons -- an entire graduating class.  To those of us who remember the 4, 6, and 8 team tourneys that doesn't seem that long, but with a 16-team tourney one should expect Cornell to make the tourney about 50% of the time.  The fact that we were the first team cropped twice in those four years doesn't change the fact that we have no NC$$ games over that stretch, which is disturbing.

2. The 2015 graduating class was awesomely talented and by every measure I think we all agree they greatly underachieved.  Whatever that was -- chemistry, maturity, work ethic, The System -- it makes us worry that even if we get talent it may not convert to wins.

3. The particular contour of this year, an amazing start and then a long, depressing collapse, left everybody with a bad taste in their mouth.

Mitigating the negatives was watching this team both in person and via video. They seemed improved over last year.  That's just my opinion but it colors the whole season for me. The games vs top teams were on balance a joy.

Quote from: Trotsky3. The particular contour of this year, an amazing start and then a long, depressing collapse, left everybody with a bad taste in their mouth.

I think this is the biggest factor.  If we had been miserable in the fall, going 0-5-2 in November, and then had a great send half and ended up with the same record/position I think people would feel a lot more positively about the team.

The two scenarios aren't exactly the same - you are supposed to play better as the season goes on, especially with a young team. But looking over the whole body of work I think there are lots of reasons to expect better things next season.

Quote from: martyMitigating the negatives was watching this team both in person and via video. They seemed improved over last year.  That's just my opinion but it colors the whole season for me. The games vs top teams were on balance a joy.

It's not just your opinion.  This was a significantly better team that the ones of the prior three seasons.  If they got lucky in the first half they got as unlucky in the second half.  They had one putrid weekend -- the Dartmouth and Harvard games at Lynah -- which because it was immediately followed by yet another zero point weekend (the North Country games, both ot losses) was amplified in our impressions.

They seem to be moving towards an up-tempo style that sacrifices 1-2 GA to score 2-3 GF.  I am so OK with that.

Quote from: Scersk '97

Quote from: css228

Quote from: Scersk '97For "bad," see Clarkson or RPI, once proud programs that have fallen on really tough times. Clarkson hasn't made the semis since 2007, and RPI (2002) is "on the clock."

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

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

Let me say it one more time: you lack historical perspective. RPI has won two national championships, with the most recent won more recently (1985) than our last one; Clarkson is one of the winningest programs all-time in college hockey and has been an unfortunate also-ran a few times, the last time (1970) to us!

If you think the expectations at Clarkson or RPI are lower than they are at Cornell, you're either ignorant or some sort of idiot elitist. At this point, I'll go with both.

I'm done feeding the trolls, now. Done. I refer the right honorable gentleman to what abmarks wrote.

Speaking of Clarkson, I was over on their forum and they not surprisingly have a similar thread. Somehow they are exponentially more pessimistic than even this thread. The general consensus over there appears to be that they can't compete anymore on a national level due to location and increased competition, and they will never recapture former glory. I sure hope we don't get to that place, and more importantly, if they are correct we shouldn't be using them to justify our poor results haha

Well, Schafer, Mark Dennehy, and Paul Pearl are apparently the three contenders who interviewed for the head coach position at UMass, so you can't fire him if he leaves.

http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2016/03/25_umass_interviews_dennehy.php

Quote from: CowbellGuyWell, Schafer, Mark Dennehy, and Paul Pearl are apparently the three contenders who interviewed for the head coach position at UMass, so you can't fire him if he leaves.

http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2016/03/25_umass_interviews_dennehy.php

Interesting.  Seems like it would be an odd career choice (leaving your Alma Mater for a school that doesn't exactly have a top hockey program or tradition.)  Then again, it could mean Andy agrees with some of the folks here and has put the writing on the wall.  Or maybe with the kids out of school Schafer is looking to get out of Ithaca.  Who knows?

Quote from: KeithK

Quote from: CowbellGuyWell, Schafer, Mark Dennehy, and Paul Pearl are apparently the three contenders who interviewed for the head coach position at UMass, so you can't fire him if he leaves.

http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2016/03/25_umass_interviews_dennehy.php

Interesting.  Seems like it would be an odd career choice (leaving your Alma Mater for a school that doesn't exactly have a top hockey program or tradition.)  Then again, it could mean Andy agrees with some of the folks here and has put the writing on the wall.  Or maybe with the kids out of school Schafer is looking to get out of Ithaca.  Who knows?

Is it possible that since Schafer's contract is expiring this year, this is just something he is doing for contract negotiation purposes?

Quote from: andyw2100Is it possible that since Schafer's contract is expiring this year, this is just something he is doing for contract negotiation purposes?

Always be ready to leave, they say. And one suspects that Andy is not the kind of boss that inspires loyalty.

PS I've always thought Paul Pearl (or Shaun Hannah, if he's still in the game) would be an excellent candidate, should it come to that.

Quote from: cuhockey93Speaking of Clarkson, I was over on their forum and they not surprisingly have a similar thread. Somehow they are exponentially more pessimistic than even this thread. The general consensus over there appears to be that they can't compete anymore on a national level due to location and increased competition, and they will never recapture former glory. I sure hope we don't get to that place, and more importantly, if they are correct we shouldn't be using them to justify our poor results haha

They're wrong, I think. Scholarships well distributed can cure many ills.

Anyway, they're just a bunch of cranks shooting their mouths off on an internet forum. What do they know? ::whistle::

Quote from: CowbellGuyyou can't fire him if he leaves

TFF (http://i.imgur.com/oJKX50W.gif)

Quote from: CowbellGuyWell, Schafer, Mark Dennehy, and Paul Pearl are apparently the three contenders who interviewed for the head coach position at UMass, so you can't fire him if he leaves.

http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2016/03/25_umass_interviews_dennehy.php

Works for me. Let's hope UMass doesn't realize the horrible mistake they'd be making.

Schafer would make UMass credible IMO.  They'd be lucky to have him.  Wonder if the Hockey East/ability to offer scholarships appeals to him.  I imagine it would be difficult for him to leave.

I hope that Schafer doesn't leave.  Ratushny is an interesting idea as mentioned above, but his Red Bull tenure has gone well and he's also coaching the Austrian National team I think.  I'm assuming he'd have to take a pay cut to leave.

Quote from: css228

Quote from: CowbellGuyWell, Schafer, Mark Dennehy, and Paul Pearl are apparently the three contenders who interviewed for the head coach position at UMass, so you can't fire him if he leaves.

http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2016/03/25_umass_interviews_dennehy.php

Works for me. Let's hope UMass doesn't realize the horrible mistake they'd be making.

Really?

Quote from: Dafatone

Quote from: css228

Quote from: CowbellGuyWell, Schafer, Mark Dennehy, and Paul Pearl are apparently the three contenders who interviewed for the head coach position at UMass, so you can't fire him if he leaves.

http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2016/03/25_umass_interviews_dennehy.php

Works for me. Let's hope UMass doesn't realize the horrible mistake they'd be making.

Really?

Yup I've been utterly clear that I think the system he plays and talent he recruits are not a fit in this era, and if we're going to be a mediocre team, I'd at least rather be an aggressive and mediocre team. I want a system that looks like the one Dave Hakstol used to run at UND with a 2 and sometimes 3 man forecheck, aggressive pinching from the D to keep cycles alive, and aggressive neutral zone play to force opponents to dump and chase. The obvious downside to this system being that if the opponent does get a clean breakout, and the players aren't in lock step where they're supposed to be they can be beaten on the rush. I'm convinced that when executed properly this style of system is the best way for a squad that isn't going to get Eichels to exploit undervalued skills (possession, if you don't believe me see everyone's reaction every time I bring this up, and then note that all of the teams in the Frozen Four are dominant possession teams by any analyitic measure kept in college) and compete in the modern era of College Hockey.

Quote from: css228

Quote from: Dafatone

Quote from: css228Works for me. Let's hope UMass doesn't realize the horrible mistake they'd be making.

Really?

Yup I've been utterly clear that I think the system he plays and talent he recruits are not a fit in this era, and if we're going to be a mediocre team,

"Horrible mistake" is quite a bit of an exaggeration. But one should not be surprised when a poster who has been extremely critical about the coach continues to be so.

Quote from: css228

Quote from: CowbellGuyWell, Schafer, Mark Dennehy, and Paul Pearl are apparently the three contenders who interviewed for the head coach position at UMass, so you can't fire him if he leaves.

http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2016/03/25_umass_interviews_dennehy.php

Works for me. Let's hope UMass doesn't realize the horrible mistake they'd be making.

Schafer's career win % as a coach is 0.612, UMass has yet to turn in a single D1 season higher than that. They have only once surpassed the 0.574 win % that "mediocre" Cornell posted *this* season. They have had three winning seasons in 22 years, all under Toot Cahoon.

Clearly, it would be a disastrous move for that shining star of a program.

Quote from: RichH

Quote from: css228

Quote from: CowbellGuyWell, Schafer, Mark Dennehy, and Paul Pearl are apparently the three contenders who interviewed for the head coach position at UMass, so you can't fire him if he leaves.

http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2016/03/25_umass_interviews_dennehy.php

Works for me. Let's hope UMass doesn't realize the horrible mistake they'd be making.

Schafer's career win % as a coach is 0.612, UMass has yet to turn in a single D1 season higher than that. They have only once surpassed the 0.574 win % that "mediocre" Cornell posted *this* season. They have had three winning seasons in 22 years, all under Toot Cahoon.

Clearly, it would be a disastrous move for that shining star of a program.

And that's all with some kid named Quick.

Quote from: RichHSchafer's career win % as a coach is 0.612, UMass has yet to turn in a single D1 season higher than that. They have only once surpassed the 0.574 win % that "mediocre" Cornell posted *this* season. They have had three winning seasons in 22 years, all under Toot Cahoon.

Clearly, it would be a disastrous move for that shining star of a program.

Taking a quick look, it's pretty clear ol' Toots made something of a mistake (http://www.collegehockeynews.com/reports/coach/Don-Cahoon/2116) leaving Princeton. No question he could've continued spinning out pretty successful (for Princeton) seasons on a regular basis down there.

The grass certainly isn't always greener.

Quote from: css228

Quote from: Dafatone

Quote from: css228

Quote from: CowbellGuyWell, Schafer, Mark Dennehy, and Paul Pearl are apparently the three contenders who interviewed for the head coach position at UMass, so you can't fire him if he leaves.

http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2016/03/25_umass_interviews_dennehy.php

Works for me. Let's hope UMass doesn't realize the horrible mistake they'd be making.

Really?

Yup I've been utterly clear that I think the system he plays and talent he recruits are not a fit in this era, and if we're going to be a mediocre team, I'd at least rather be an aggressive and mediocre team. I want a system that looks like the one Dave Hakstol used to run at UND with a 2 and sometimes 3 man forecheck, aggressive pinching from the D to keep cycles alive, and aggressive neutral zone play to force opponents to dump and chase. The obvious downside to this system being that if the opponent does get a clean breakout, and the players aren't in lock step where they're supposed to be they can be beaten on the rush. I'm convinced that when executed properly this style of system is the best way for a squad that isn't going to get Eichels to exploit undervalued skills (possession, if you don't believe me see everyone's reaction every time I bring this up, and then note that all of the teams in the Frozen Four are dominant possession teams by any analyitic measure kept in college) and compete in the modern era of College Hockey.

Can you give examples of other schools who run this kind of system?  It sounds somewhat like Union's high pressure team that won the title, and which I really admired.

Having watched the Sioux play it to perfection I agree it would be fun top watch if we could pull it off.

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: css228

Quote from: Dafatone

Quote from: css228

Quote from: CowbellGuyWell, Schafer, Mark Dennehy, and Paul Pearl are apparently the three contenders who interviewed for the head coach position at UMass, so you can't fire him if he leaves.

http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2016/03/25_umass_interviews_dennehy.php

Works for me. Let's hope UMass doesn't realize the horrible mistake they'd be making.

Really?

Yup I've been utterly clear that I think the system he plays and talent he recruits are not a fit in this era, and if we're going to be a mediocre team, I'd at least rather be an aggressive and mediocre team. I want a system that looks like the one Dave Hakstol used to run at UND with a 2 and sometimes 3 man forecheck, aggressive pinching from the D to keep cycles alive, and aggressive neutral zone play to force opponents to dump and chase. The obvious downside to this system being that if the opponent does get a clean breakout, and the players aren't in lock step where they're supposed to be they can be beaten on the rush. I'm convinced that when executed properly this style of system is the best way for a squad that isn't going to get Eichels to exploit undervalued skills (possession, if you don't believe me see everyone's reaction every time I bring this up, and then note that all of the teams in the Frozen Four are dominant possession teams by any analyitic measure kept in college) and compete in the modern era of College Hockey.

Can you give examples of other schools who run this kind of system?  It sounds somewhat like Union's high pressure team that won the title, and which I really admired.

Having watched the Sioux play it to perfection I agree it would be fun top watch if we could pull it off.

Yale plays a similar style if not quite as aggressive, or at least did while I was still in school.

Quote from: css228Yale plays a similar style if not quite as aggressive, or at least did while I was still in school.

No longer.  Yale plays a solid D game that starts from Lyons and radiates out through stay at home D-men.  They are playing Schafer hockey now.

Quote from: Scersk '97Taking a quick look, it's pretty clear ol' Toots made something of a mistake (http://www.collegehockeynews.com/reports/coach/Don-Cahoon/2116) leaving Princeton. No question he could've continued spinning out pretty successful (for Princeton) seasons on a regular basis down there.

Well, that's kind of the standard jump to make, right? Take a small, constrained, and/or unheralded program, to some level of success and spin that performance to a bigger contract at a larger institution with more resources and a desire to improve. Recent examples are Don Lucia, Guy Gadowski, Jeff Jackson, Nate Leaman, and closer to home, Steve Donahue. One could even argue that Jerry York made that jump twice.

Quote from: RichHWell, that's kind of the standard jump to make, right? Take a small, constrained, and/or unheralded program, to some level of success and spin that performance to a bigger contract at a larger institution with more resources and a desire to improve. Recent examples are Don Lucia, Guy Gadowski, Jeff Jackson, Nate Leaman, and closer to home, Steve Donahue. One could even argue that Jerry York made that jump twice.

Or...not a whole lot of success. UMass job accepted by SLU's Greg Carvel. Pretty stunning for SLU, as Carvel is a Canton native, St. Lawrence graduate, and the torch-bearer of Joe Marsh's legacy. According to CHN, he has ties to UMass as he went to grad school there, and his wife is from Amherst. His record in four years at SLU: 72-63-15.

UMass is reportedly hiring an ECAC head coach, but not ours.

http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2016/03/29_carvel_chosen_as_new_umass.php

Quote from: RichHWell, that's kind of the standard jump to make, right? Take a small, constrained, and/or unheralded program, to some level of success and spin that performance to a bigger contract at a larger institution with more resources and a desire to improve. Recent examples are Don Lucia, Guy Gadowski, Jeff Jackson, Nate Leaman, and closer to home, Steve Donahue. One could even argue that Jerry York made that jump twice.

"Bigger institution with more resources and a desire to improve"——there's the rub. If we figure that Cahoon was a pretty good coach and recruiter, and there seems to be no reason to think otherwise, why was he unable to achieve a "second flowering" (finishing in the top of the league for a couple of years after a down period) at UMass like he had at Princeton? Using history as a guide, going to UMass seems a risky proposition. In Schafer's case it would've been going from "large, successful institution with a great tradition and pretty good resources but an awful administrator or two" to "larger institution with potentially more resources but no tradition and a wavering commitment to improvement." That isn't what any of the guys in your list, save Gadowsky, did; Gadowsky's move was a pretty sure bet.

For what it's worth, I see no reason that the Princeton job would be a bad one long term. Once removed, I'll say that the university is a good place to work, with great benefits, and no lack of resources. Considering the talent available in New Jersey and the Philadelphia area and the growing amount of talent available to the south of there and the lack of a natural competitor in the area (i.e., Brown has Providence; Dartmouth has UNH and Vermont), I would think the right coach could make Princeton a perennial contender if not a perennial powerhouse.

If Carvel's wife, as reported, has ties to the area, that's what this move is all about. Isn't that why Tambroni left, after all?

Not that I want any of that to happen, of course...

Quote from: Scersk '97If Carvel's wife, as reported, has ties to the area, that's what this move is all about.

"Honey, we've spent four years in this frozen wilderness.  Can we please go back to civilization?"

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: css228Yale plays a similar style if not quite as aggressive, or at least did while I was still in school.

No longer.  Yale plays a solid D game that starts from Lyons and radiates out through stay at home D-men.  They are playing Schafer hockey now.

Boooooooooooo

Quote from: css228

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: css228Yale plays a similar style if not quite as aggressive, or at least did while I was still in school.

No longer.  Yale plays a solid D game that starts from Lyons and radiates out through stay at home D-men.  They are playing Schafer hockey now.

Boooooooooooo

Seems to me Allain fits the style to his personnel.  I think it's pretty admirable that he won it all with firewagon hockey and has now gotten back to the NC$$ using Schafer hockey.

Quote from: css228

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: css228Yale plays a similar style if not quite as aggressive, or at least did while I was still in school.

No longer.  Yale plays a solid D game that starts from Lyons and radiates out through stay at home D-men.  They are playing Schafer hockey now.

Boooooooooooo

I'm curisou what you would have thought watching Schafer's teams a dozen years ago when we played a very defense oriented schem and were very successful. Nothing wrong with wanting to watch a particular style that you find appealing.

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: css228

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: css228Yale plays a similar style if not quite as aggressive, or at least did while I was still in school.

No longer.  Yale plays a solid D game that starts from Lyons and radiates out through stay at home D-men.  They are playing Schafer hockey now.

Boooooooooooo

Seems to me Allain fits the style to his personnel.  I think it's pretty admirable that he won it all with firewagon hockey and has now gotten back to the NC$$ using Schafer hockey.

Agreed.  Schafer clearly prefers to fit players into his system, which makes him less adaptable.

Quote from: KeithK

Quote from: css228

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: css228Yale plays a similar style if not quite as aggressive, or at least did while I was still in school.

No longer.  Yale plays a solid D game that starts from Lyons and radiates out through stay at home D-men.  They are playing Schafer hockey now.

Boooooooooooo

I'm curisou what you would have thought watching Schafer's teams a dozen years ago when we played a very defense oriented schem and were very successful. Nothing wrong with wanting to watch a particular style that you find appealing.

I mean that was how hockey was played back then. I watched the Flyers despite them being coached by Ken Hitchcock. Was never a big fan but he got results (ish). If clutch and grab is what wins games, then clutch and grab, but hockey is a lot better for having left that era behind. The moment that team took a turn for the worse (mostly Bobby clarke's fault) I was glad to see Hitch let go and the job given to John Stevens. I guess I generally dislike conservative styles because they constrain players to the point where they almost lose the joy of playing, and the habituate players to not take risks. If taking a calculated pinch to sustain a cycle and create a chances is good process, then it shouldn't be punished even if the player falls trying to make a play, turns the puck over, and the opponents score on a break. (http://nesn.com/2016/02/michel-therrien-blames-p-k-subban-for-canadiens-loss-to-avalanche/) That's a major philosophical disagreement I have with conservative coaches like Schafer and Michel Therrien. Good coaches and leaders put their players in positions where they're empowered to succeed, not where they're being asked to not fail. The thing about that Subban play is that Subban is doing what makes P.K. Subban a Norris Trophy winning defenseman. Did he screw up sure, but Therrien hurt his chances of a comeback far more by stapling his best player to bench for the remainder of that game.

As for the other comments on adapting the style to fit your players, I agree its a good thing to be able to do that, but you should also have the ability to recruit guys that fit your style. For example I would never try to run the system I suggested with the kinds of big, but not particularly mobile dmen that Schafer has tended to recruit. In an aggressive system like that skating and positioning are by far the two most important aspects of the game. Although I would not call what Hakstol's teams at UND or the his current team in Philly perform firewagon hockey. Its kinda like a full court press in basketball, in that it only works if you pressure as a complete unit and have a ton of structure to your game (which means admittedly Yale was not the best comparison). As a side note, its not like all of Haktsol's teams had a TJ Oshie or a Johnathan Toews. Some years they did dial back aspects of the pressure to compensate for relatively lesser talent, but the basic concepts of the system remained the same. And they had a lot of success even in years where they didn't have that star 1st round draft pick.

I should add, that sometimes you do need to use a 1-2-2 forecheck to mix things up. If you give opponents the same look all night at the NCAA level, they are going to be good enough to pick you apart.

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: css228Yale plays a similar style if not quite as aggressive, or at least did while I was still in school.

No longer.  Yale plays a solid D game that starts started from Lyons and radiates out through stay at home D-men.  They are playing Schafer hockey now.

FYP::banana::

Thinking of him doing this ::drive:: with his signing bonus.

So, I know exactly how I want Cornell to play hockey, having now watched the Royals take the Mets apart last night, again, just like they did in the WS.

That constant pressure and intensity and keeping your head in every second of the game and scrapping for every tiny advantage and not letting up for an instant; good god, it just shatters lesser teams mentally.  It's exhausting just watching it, let alone having to deal with it on the ice.

The only hockey team I've ever seen do that was the 85 RPI national champions.  Take that, season with some decent talent (which we have) and backstop it with a goalie who can save you for the handful of D breakdowns that you will give up (which we have... at least I think), and it will produce wins.  And a helluva lot of fun. And maybe a heart attack on the bench.

Quote from: TrotskySo, I know exactly how I want Cornell to play hockey, having now watched the Royals take the Mets apart last night, again, just like they did in the WS.

That constant pressure and intensity and keeping your head in every second of the game and scrapping for every tiny advantage and not letting up for an instant; good god, it just shatters lesser teams mentally.  It's exhausting just watching it, let alone having to deal with it on the ice.

The only hockey team I've ever seen do that was the 85 RPI national champions.  Take that, season with some decent talent (which we have) and backstop it with a goalie who can save you for the handful of D breakdowns that you will give up (which we have... at least I think), and it will produce wins.  And a helluva lot of fun. And maybe a heart attack on the bench.

Every team, Cornell especially, is already trying to do this.

Quote from: TrotskySo, I know exactly how I want Cornell to play hockey, having now watched the Royals take the Mets apart last night, again, just like they did in the WS.

That constant pressure and intensity and keeping your head in every second of the game and scrapping for every tiny advantage and not letting up for an instant; good god, it just shatters lesser teams mentally.  It's exhausting just watching it, let alone having to deal with it on the ice.

The only hockey team I've ever seen do that was the 85 RPI national champions.  Take that, season with some decent talent (which we have) and backstop it with a goalie who can save you for the handful of D breakdowns that you will give up (which we have... at least I think), and it will produce wins.  And a helluva lot of fun. And maybe a heart attack on the bench.

The Mets may have been okay (in both the WS and last night) if Cespedes could catch a freakin' ball.  Or if Duda (who normally throws just fine, despite all this talk about his bad defense, which is really just his glove) made a better throw.  Or if they could figure out how to beat Edinson Volquez (It's not hard!  Just don't swing!  NOTHING he throws is in the strike zone ever!  Seriously.)

But I see your point.  This year's hockey team at least felt like it had the potential to maybe sometimes score, such as at the end of regulation in that Brown game where a loss would have been a disaster (and a tie was pretty bad, too).

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: TrotskySo, I know exactly how I want Cornell to play hockey, having now watched the Royals take the Mets apart last night, again, just like they did in the WS.

That constant pressure and intensity and keeping your head in every second of the game and scrapping for every tiny advantage and not letting up for an instant; good god, it just shatters lesser teams mentally.  It's exhausting just watching it, let alone having to deal with it on the ice.

The only hockey team I've ever seen do that was the 85 RPI national champions.  Take that, season with some decent talent (which we have) and backstop it with a goalie who can save you for the handful of D breakdowns that you will give up (which we have... at least I think), and it will produce wins.  And a helluva lot of fun. And maybe a heart attack on the bench.

Every team, Cornell especially, is already trying to do this.

I disagree with that premise, although it may stem from a different interpretation. What he's implying to me is the type of high pressure system attack points at blue line system that he's been advocated, as opposed to a more Torts/Schafer/90s-2000s Devils clog the neutral zone, block shots, collapse around the goalie. Basically he's talking about the hockey equivalent of running the old Arkansas 40 minutes of hell full court press defense.

You might be right--I interpreted the post more literally to mean just relentless/scrappy effort for the full 60 minutes--something Schafer preaches in every press conference.  

For the record, the Royals are poorly managed and make tons of in-game mistakes.  They are overly aggressive in their swinging and baserunning and although it happened to not cost them against the Mets in the WS and last night, they are by no means the beacon of managerial tactics.

Quote from: BearLoverYou might be right--I interpreted the post more literally to mean just relentless/scrappy effort for the full 60 minutes--something Schafer preaches in every press conference.  

For the record, the Royals are poorly managed and make tons of in-game mistakes.  They are overly aggressive in their swinging and baserunning and although it happened to not cost them against the Mets in the WS and last night, they are by no means the beacon of managerial tactics.

Yeah but Hockey is also a completely different game than baseball. In baseball the goal is to conserve outs, since you only get 27 of them. In hockey, you're arguably less penalized for any single mistake unless it ends up in the back of your net.

Quote from: BearLoverFor the record, the Royals are poorly managed and make tons of in-game mistakes.  They are overly aggressive in their swinging and baserunning and although it happened to not cost them against the Mets in the WS and last night, they are by no means the beacon of managerial tactics.

{driffffffft}

The Royals are zigging when the rest of the league is zagging but it's not like there isn't a plan. They build their team on almost a little league model: they value putting the ball in play above pure OBP skills and let their aggressive baserunning act as defensive pressure. They swing a lot and while you'd think that would mean a lot of strikeouts, it turns out that with a high-contact team it means a ton of foul balls and high pitch counts and the benefits of chasing the starter.

The more you watch them the more it makes sense, though it's a strategy that requires very specific roster construction. The computer models still don't appreciate the Royals because they make no sense in light of how we usually think about the game now. The formula is going to be hard to replicate - and maybe so hard that it isn't worth trying - but they're going to be very good again this year.

Anyway, I think about this article (http://www.fangraphs.com/community/stop-thinking-like-a-gm-start-thinking-like-a-player/) (in part about how eventually statistics redeemed old scouting opinions regarding catcher defense that the statheads had dismissed as nonsense but mostly about humility) all the time when I think about the Royals' emphasis on contact, speed and defense (and a shut-down bullpen). The outsider statheads will eventually catch up to what the Royals are doing and reduce it to numbers. The insiders already have the calculations under lock and key.

Quote from: ugarte

Quote from: BearLoverFor the record, the Royals are poorly managed and make tons of in-game mistakes.  They are overly aggressive in their swinging and baserunning and although it happened to not cost them against the Mets in the WS and last night, they are by no means the beacon of managerial tactics.

{driffffffft}

The Royals are zigging when the rest of the league is zagging but it's not like there isn't a plan. They build their team on almost a little league model: they value putting the ball in play above pure OBP skills and let their aggressive baserunning act as defensive pressure. They swing a lot and while you'd think that would mean a lot of strikeouts, it turns out that with a high-contact team it means a ton of foul balls and high pitch counts and the benefits of chasing the starter.

The more you watch them the more it makes sense, though it's a strategy that requires very specific roster construction. The computer models still don't appreciate the Royals because they make no sense in light of how we usually think about the game now. The formula is going to be hard to replicate - and maybe so hard that it isn't worth trying - but they're going to be very good again this year.

Anyway, I think about this article (http://www.fangraphs.com/community/stop-thinking-like-a-gm-start-thinking-like-a-player/) (in part about how eventually statistics redeemed old scouting opinions regarding catcher defense that the statheads had dismissed as nonsense but mostly about humility) all the time when I think about the Royals' emphasis on contact, speed and defense (and a shut-down bullpen). The outsider statheads will eventually catch up to what the Royals are doing and reduce it to numbers. The insiders already have the calculations under lock and key.

Their defense is amazing, their bullpen is absurdly ridiculous, and their lineup has no holes and a few very underrated bats.

Quote from: ugarteAnyway, I think about this article (http://www.fangraphs.com/community/stop-thinking-like-a-gm-start-thinking-like-a-player/) (in part about how eventually statistics redeemed old scouting opinions regarding catcher defense that the statheads had dismissed as nonsense but mostly about humility) all the time when I think about the Royals' emphasis on contact, speed and defense (and a shut-down bullpen).

Thanks for that link. Great read.

Quote from: css228

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: TrotskySo, I know exactly how I want Cornell to play hockey, having now watched the Royals take the Mets apart last night, again, just like they did in the WS.

That constant pressure and intensity and keeping your head in every second of the game and scrapping for every tiny advantage and not letting up for an instant; good god, it just shatters lesser teams mentally.  It's exhausting just watching it, let alone having to deal with it on the ice.

The only hockey team I've ever seen do that was the 85 RPI national champions.  Take that, season with some decent talent (which we have) and backstop it with a goalie who can save you for the handful of D breakdowns that you will give up (which we have... at least I think), and it will produce wins.  And a helluva lot of fun. And maybe a heart attack on the bench.

Every team, Cornell especially, is already trying to do this.

I disagree with that premise, although it may stem from a different interpretation. What he's implying to me is the type of high pressure system attack points at blue line system that he's been advocated, as opposed to a more Torts/Schafer/90s-2000s Devils clog the neutral zone, block shots, collapse around the goalie. Basically he's talking about the hockey equivalent of running the old Arkansas 40 minutes of hell full court press defense.

That is what I meant; in fact I had the Arkansas squad in mind and ought to have mentioned them.

Guys, this is a hockey thread. I hope?::worry:: There is another forum for "Other Sports".

Quote from: Jim HylaGuys, this is a hockey thread. I hope?::worry:: There is another forum for "Other Sports".

If you call that a sport.

Quote from: KeithK

Quote from: ugarteAnyway, I think about this article (http://www.fangraphs.com/community/stop-thinking-like-a-gm-start-thinking-like-a-player/) (in part about how eventually statistics redeemed old scouting opinions regarding catcher defense that the statheads had dismissed as nonsense but mostly about humility) all the time when I think about the Royals' emphasis on contact, speed and defense (and a shut-down bullpen).

Thanks for that link. Great read.

It's the best serious article about baseball I've ever read. The best non-serious article is this one (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=19409).

Quote from: Jim HylaGuys, this is a hockey thread. I hope?::worry:: There is another forum for "Other Sports".

The main point of this thread is dead, Jim. Circular, tedious, the sides have fully presented their cases to the sad end of convincing nobody.

The drift is the only thing worth coming back for.

Quote from: ugarteThe main point of this thread is dead, Jim.

Not until he re-signs it's not.

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: ugarteThe main point of this thread is dead, Jim.

Not until he re-signs it's not.

What if Topher jumping ship means he knew something that we don't?

(Just stirring the pot as I wait for the Yankees home opener.)

Quote from: KeithK

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: ugarteThe main point of this thread is dead, Jim.

Not until he re-signs it's not.

What if Topher jumping ship means he knew something that we don't?

(Just stirring the pot as I wait for the Yankees home opener.)

What makes you think Topher wasn't forced to walk the plank?

Quote from: ugarte

Quote from: Jim HylaGuys, this is a hockey thread. I hope?::worry:: There is another forum for "Other Sports".

The main point of this thread is dead, Jim. Circular, tedious, the sides have fully presented their cases to the sad end of convincing nobody.

The drift is the only thing worth coming back for.

Then put the drift in another forum and don't post here till there is more hockey news.

Quote from: Jim Hyla

Quote from: ugarte

Quote from: Jim HylaGuys, this is a hockey thread. I hope?::worry:: There is another forum for "Other Sports".

The main point of this thread is dead, Jim. Circular, tedious, the sides have fully presented their cases to the sad end of convincing nobody.

The drift is the only thing worth coming back for.

Then put the drift in another forum and don't post here till there is more hockey news.

Read the article (http://www.fangraphs.com/community/stop-thinking-like-a-gm-start-thinking-like-a-player/) and calm down.

Quote from: ugarte

Quote from: Jim Hyla

Quote from: ugarte

Quote from: Jim HylaGuys, this is a hockey thread. I hope?::worry:: There is another forum for "Other Sports".

The main point of this thread is dead, Jim. Circular, tedious, the sides have fully presented their cases to the sad end of convincing nobody.

The drift is the only thing worth coming back for.

Then put the drift in another forum and don't post here till there is more hockey news.

Read the article (http://www.fangraphs.com/community/stop-thinking-like-a-gm-start-thinking-like-a-player/) and calm down.

Why do you think I'm not calm? Was it something I said?

I was responding to the general drift of the thread and wasn't particularly interested in everybody's thoughts on their favorite, and not so favorite, teams. I wasn't responding to any article.

Quote from: Jim Hyla

Quote from: ugarte

Quote from: Jim Hyla

Quote from: ugarte

Quote from: Jim HylaGuys, this is a hockey thread. I hope?::worry:: There is another forum for "Other Sports".

The main point of this thread is dead, Jim. Circular, tedious, the sides have fully presented their cases to the sad end of convincing nobody.

The drift is the only thing worth coming back for.

Then put the drift in another forum and don't post here till there is more hockey news.

Read the article (http://www.fangraphs.com/community/stop-thinking-like-a-gm-start-thinking-like-a-player/) and calm down.

Why do you think I'm not calm? Was it something I said?

I was responding to the general drift of the thread and wasn't particularly interested in everybody's thoughts on their favorite, and not so favorite, teams. I wasn't responding to any article.

this is what the thread is now

Quote from: ugarte

Quote from: Jim Hyla

Quote from: ugarte

Quote from: Jim Hyla

Quote from: ugarte

Quote from: Jim HylaGuys, this is a hockey thread. I hope?::worry:: There is another forum for "Other Sports".

The main point of this thread is dead, Jim. Circular, tedious, the sides have fully presented their cases to the sad end of convincing nobody.

The drift is the only thing worth coming back for.

Then put the drift in another forum and don't post here till there is more hockey news.

Read the article (http://www.fangraphs.com/community/stop-thinking-like-a-gm-start-thinking-like-a-player/) and calm down.

Why do you think I'm not calm? Was it something I said?

I was responding to the general drift of the thread and wasn't particularly interested in everybody's thoughts on their favorite, and not so favorite, teams. I wasn't responding to any article.

this is what the thread is now

So therefore it belongs in "Other Sports".:-D

Quote from: Jim Hyla

Quote from: ugarte

Quote from: Jim Hyla

Quote from: ugarte

Quote from: Jim Hyla

Quote from: ugarte

Quote from: Jim HylaGuys, this is a hockey thread. I hope?::worry:: There is another forum for "Other Sports".

The main point of this thread is dead, Jim. Circular, tedious, the sides have fully presented their cases to the sad end of convincing nobody.

The drift is the only thing worth coming back for.

Then put the drift in another forum and don't post here till there is more hockey news.

Read the article (http://www.fangraphs.com/community/stop-thinking-like-a-gm-start-thinking-like-a-player/) and calm down.

Why do you think I'm not calm? Was it something I said?

I was responding to the general drift of the thread and wasn't particularly interested in everybody's thoughts on their favorite, and not so favorite, teams. I wasn't responding to any article.

this is what the thread is now

So therefore it belongs in "Other Sports".:-D

But it isn't there.

To get back to kinda-relevance, one thing I liked in that (fantastic) article on sabermetrics and catcher defense is the idea that advanced metrics change depending on the conditions of the league at the time.  Back when everyone was blasting homers, a catcher that got on base more was a big deal because baserunners pretty much all scored.  Now that nobody's scoring, catcher defense may matter more.

Similarly, we've talked a little about applying some hockey metrics to college hockey.  It's important to note (as some folks have done) that hockey metrics are developed based on NHL data, and that what's valuable in the NHL may not correlate to value in college hockey.  Granted, there'll be some correlation.  More shots is better than fewer shots.  More puck possession is better than less puck possession.

But maybe our metrics aren't where they need to be just yet to really dig into what's going on in the college level.

Quote from: ugarte

Quote from: Jim Hyla

Quote from: ugarte

Quote from: Jim Hyla

Quote from: ugarte

Quote from: Jim Hyla

Quote from: ugarte

Quote from: Jim HylaGuys, this is a hockey thread. I hope?::worry:: There is another forum for "Other Sports".

The main point of this thread is dead, Jim. Circular, tedious, the sides have fully presented their cases to the sad end of convincing nobody.

The drift is the only thing worth coming back for.

Then put the drift in another forum and don't post here till there is more hockey news.

Read the article (http://www.fangraphs.com/community/stop-thinking-like-a-gm-start-thinking-like-a-player/) and calm down.

Why do you think I'm not calm? Was it something I said?

I was responding to the general drift of the thread and wasn't particularly interested in everybody's thoughts on their favorite, and not so favorite, teams. I wasn't responding to any article.

this is what the thread is now

So therefore it belongs in "Other Sports".:-D

But it isn't there.

That's why I asked for it to be put there.::drive::

Quote from: Jim Hyla

Quote from: ugarte

Quote from: Jim Hyla

Quote from: ugarte

Quote from: Jim Hyla

Quote from: ugarte

Quote from: Jim Hyla

Quote from: ugarte

Quote from: Jim HylaGuys, this is a hockey thread. I hope?::worry:: There is another forum for "Other Sports".

The main point of this thread is dead, Jim. Circular, tedious, the sides have fully presented their cases to the sad end of convincing nobody.

The drift is the only thing worth coming back for.

Then put the drift in another forum and don't post here till there is more hockey news.

Read the article (http://www.fangraphs.com/community/stop-thinking-like-a-gm-start-thinking-like-a-player/) and calm down.

Why do you think I'm not calm? Was it something I said?

I was responding to the general drift of the thread and wasn't particularly interested in everybody's thoughts on their favorite, and not so favorite, teams. I wasn't responding to any article.

this is what the thread is now

So therefore it belongs in "Other Sports".:-D

But it isn't there.

That's why I asked for it to be put there.::drive::

How's that going?

So, are we currently technically entre coach, or does Mike's contract run out sometime this summer?

new asst. coach to be announced this week.  if rumors are correct, should be a boost in recruiting.

Quote from: maybCUnew asst. coach to be announced this week.  if rumors are correct, should be a boost in recruiting.

Rumors?  What rumors?

I hear they're going to hire Joe N. That'll help recruiting.

Quote from: KeithK

Quote from: maybCUnew asst. coach to be announced this week.  if rumors are correct, should be a boost in recruiting.

Rumors?  What rumors?

I hear they're going to hire Joe N. That'll help recruiting.

(https://newyorksightseeingtours.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/joe_namath.jpg)

!?

You heard it here first!

The harassment lawsuits will double the budget.

Quote from: TrotskyThe harassment lawsuits will double the budget.

Can I kiss you?

Wait! Are we talking football or hockey?

If Joe Willie still looks like that, maybe he could also help with recruiting for the women's teams.

Quote from: KeithKI hear they're going to hire Joe N. That'll help recruiting.

If true, the one unquestionable fact is that we would instantly be better in the faceoff circle....   The one year that he was in town & worked with the team, we kicked ass in the faceoff circle.    I expect that to repeat itself.

Quote from: SwampyWait! Are we talking football or hockey?

If Joe Willie still looks like that, maybe he could also help with recruiting for the women's teams.

If Joe Willie looks like that you need a new optometrist.

Quote from: marty

Quote from: SwampyWait! Are we talking football or hockey?

If Joe Willie still looks like that, maybe he could also help with recruiting for the women's teams.

If Joe Willie looks like that you need a new optometrist.

Or maybe a photographer who continues to work in this millennium:

(https://www.newsmax.com/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=30a82ba5-0ab6-4f30-a0ea-7d46d8cfb500&SiteName=Newsmax&maxsidesize=600)

Joe Namath and Jimmy Carter are converging.

Quote from: maybCUnew asst. coach to be announced this week.  if rumors are correct, should be a boost in recruiting.

Nothing last week:-/, maybe this week:-P, or are all the rumors incorrect::uhoh::?

Quote from: ugarteThe best non-serious article is this one (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=19409).

I take it you didn't read Tom Verducci's 2003 article on Rickey Henderson?  :-)

Quote from: RatushnyFan

Quote from: ugarteThe best non-serious article is this one (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=19409).

I take it you didn't read Tom Verducci's 2003 article on Rickey Henderson?  :-)

That doesn't look like a link.

Now that looks like a link! (http://www.si.com/vault/2003/06/23/8093482/what-is-rickey-henderson-doing-in-newark-the-greatest-leadoff-hitter-of-all-time-is-beating-the-bushes-trying-to-get-back-to-the-majorsand-still-leaving-em-laughing-at-every-stop)
Entirely worth 15 minutes of your time.......I promise.

Quote from: RatushnyFanNow that looks like a link! (http://www.si.com/vault/2003/06/23/8093482/what-is-rickey-henderson-doing-in-newark-the-greatest-leadoff-hitter-of-all-time-is-beating-the-bushes-trying-to-get-back-to-the-majorsand-still-leaving-em-laughing-at-every-stop)
Entirely worth 15 minutes of your time.......I promise.

thanks!