ELynah Forum

If I'm not mistaken, Grady Whittenburg is doing the commentary, solo, from a remote location (Lynah???) with the same video feed as is being shown on ESPN+. If so, he's a miracle worker.

If I'm not mistaken we recently clinched home ice advantage in the playoffs. Since the theoretical maximum league points by the 9th place team is 22 (in an absurd situation where there's a 12-way tie at 22 points), by passing that mark against Harvard we guaranteed at least 8th place. Realistically there's probably a way to model out the point at which everyone ending with a 22 point tie becomes no longer possible (example, if St Lawrence won all of their remaining games to get to 22 points that means others would have to lose, and Princeton and Quinnipiac still have to play RPI again, so it's conceivable that would make the maximum achievable points by the 9th place team less than 22 at this point). So maybe we clinched home ice against Colgate. Anyway, I'm pretty sure that if we win out next weekend against Union and RPI and Colgate and Dartmouth both wind up with 2 points or fewer, then we'd clinch a first week bye.

Not to jinx it or anything.

Man I have too much time on my hands.

I knew someone who went to Michigan Tech - he said that they'd hop in the car to go to Florida for spring break and celebrate when they saw "welcome to Ohio" because they knew they were more than 1/3 of the way there.

Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82For those of you new to the board, Facetimer is a well known troll.

Don't encourage him.  Let this discussion just die.

Yeah, sorry about that.  I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt and an opportunity to back up his whine with a real argument.  Obviously he can't - he was just trumpeting his grudge, wherever it comes from.  Sorry for feeding the trolls.

Quote from: FacetimerI refer you to my original post about playing the scholarship/academic standards card.  I'm obviously not tied to Dennehey - you asked for a name, and he was the first one that came to mind.  Like I said, however, somewhere in the Athletic department, somebody should be having a conversation just like this.  I doubt they are satisfied with Schafer's performance this year, nor should they be.  Heck, at this rate, Scott Mayer '03 would be a better coach than Schafer.

At this point, you've provided zero evidence that there are better options out there.  I honestly did not want to be one of the crowd simply dismissing you out of hand; I agree that it's always appropriate to look at the evidence and ask the question "could we be doing better - is there a better way to go?"  Unfortunately, you aren't answering that question.  All you're saying is "I don't like Schafer", which is only half an answer.  I don't know what Schafer did to pee in your oatmeal, but unless you can make a cogent argument that there is a reasonable potential for a better future beyond just "waaahhh Schafer said not nice things in the Sun and there are penalties and we lost to Harvard and we don't win every single game ever boo hoo hoo" it's clear that the status quo remains the superior alternative.

Quote from: FacetimerYour putting a little too much emphasis on his record, wouldn't you say?  His abysmal record makes his accomplishments at Merrimack College that much more impressive.  Your asked for a name of someone who could do a better job recruiting, developing talent, etc.  Not who has the best record among active coaches.  You're gonna have a bad record if you coach bad teams in a good conference.

It seems to me like you are content settling with Schafer because you're afraid of change.  It's the same mentality as Jim Hyla.  And it's a crap argument.  There is always someone who can do better, and the Athletics department owes it to us to at least entertain the option of a coaching change.

I'm not at all afraid of change.  All I ask is for some rationale that makes sense, that suggests that there's a reasonable expectation that change will yield a future that's better than the present.  As Giuliani said, hope is not a strategy.

As for whether or not I'm putting too much emphasis on record - I don't know what to say to that.  Call me a simpleton, but I want Cornell to win.  Whether or not a coach has been able to win in the past seems to me to be the best measure of their ability to win in the future.  Even if you give this guy a break for being at a lower profile school (albeit one with scholarships and MUCH lower admissions standards) and in a tougher conference, you've got to almost double his winning percentage to match Schafer's in the same time.

You're grasping at straws here.

So Schafer should resign so that we can hire a guy with a career coaching record of 70-141-26?  Who's enjoying his first season with a winning record as a coach - ever?  Schafer, in a building year, has a team currently tied for 3rd in the league and gets a bad quote in the Sun (I don't happen to believe that myself, but let's go with it), and for that should get taken out back and shot.  But another guy who has lost twice as many games as he has won gets the benefit of the doubt?

You say "there are guys out there" and this is the best example you can come up with?  I'm sorry, I'm not seeing it.  If you want to get taken seriously, make a serious case and convince me with a realistic scenario, rather than just hopes and dreams of a mythical better future beyond the horizon.  What you've said so far is beyond absurd.  Make a case - convince me.

Quote from: FacetimerAs discussed elsewhere in this forum, Schafer's post game comments after the surprising Harvard loss were inappropriate and reflect poorly on the University and the hockey program.  Accordingly, I think the time has come for a coaching change.  Schafer is a good coach, but not a great coach.  He's delivered a lot of bridesmaids, but never the bride. With all the talent he's had over the years, he's the only constant. It's time to move on.

Many on this board are quick to come to Schafer's defense.  I admire your loyalty, but I think your trust in Coach Schafer is misguided.  Some defend Schafer because the Ivy League restrictions make success prohibitive.  This is nothing more than a red herring.  He's coached tremendous talent (8 former Cornellians presently on NHL rosters), and had no problem recruiting, matriculating and (in some instances) graduating these young men.  The talent is there, but Schafer doesn't know how to effectively coach this talent.

Others on this board will defend Schafer's "successes."  I won't deny he's had his moments and a decent overall record, but I wouldn't call his coaching career a success.  Success only comes in winning the NCAA championship – a feat Schafer has failed to accomplish.  Do you think Mike Krzyzewski is content winning an ACC tournament, or making a Final Four appearance?  This year, the team is particularly mediocre.  They are a poorly coached, undisciplined team that can't even beat a woeful Harvard squad in their own barn.  Schafer's response to this loss was to blame the fans.

Schafer ought to be ashamed of himself, and out of respect to the hockey program and the Cornell community, he should tender his resignation.  Short of resignation, I call on the University's Administration to replace him with a coach whose priority is to ensure Cornell hockey is a perennial favorite for an NCAA title.  As students, alumni, townies, boosters and supporters of the program, we do a disservice by blindly placing our trust in Mike Schafer – a coach who is content in falling short of a national title, year in and year out.  I welcome a changing of the guard, and know others agree.

OK, let's complete this thought experiment.  Let's say Schafer resigns the day after the end of the season.  Then what?  What would be a reasonable scenario for what's next?  I don't mean some pipe dream like "Ken Dryden will come back and coach for free".  If Schafer isn't good enough, then what scenario are we missing here that would have a reasonable chance of being better?  Is there someone out there where you can make a reasonable case that they'll be better at recruiting?  At developing the players in practice?  At being a game tactician?  Who?

Quote from: TowerroadJim - I think you are being a bit enthusiastic we have not beaten Yale since Nov of 2007

Well, that does it then... proof positive, fire the bum!

(1) It's Schafer, not "Shaffer"
(2) I think firing the coach with the second highest winning percentage and the lowest losing percentage in the ECAC would be unlikely and unwise
(3) Schafer's quote, while heated, falls short of "blaming the game on the fans". Argue about whether or not the fish tradition is good or bad, or whether or not there's been too much tacit support or not, this was a big game, and when the fans - who were warned repeatedly - incur that kind of penalty, I too would be pretty pissed if I were the coach - no matter how well the team had been playing or not.

Quote from: FacetimerI agree a complaint needs to be made to the Athletic Department.  But not for the fish; rather, because it's time they show Shaffer the door.  Shaffer blaming this game on the fans is disingenuous.  The fans win Cornell games, and give Cornell perhaps the best home ice advantage in all of college hockey.  I couldn't believe it when I read Shaffer's post game comments where he places the blame on the fans.  Shame on you.

The loss (to an awful Harvard team) was because of poor coaching, and an undisciplined team.  Not the fans.  Not the refs.

Roy82,

The agencies that buy research from Cornell put a lot of stipulations on those funds, but (generally) education is not one of them.  Many of these contracts are won by competitors of Cornell that have no educational programs at all, or ones that only educate graduate students.  NSF, for example, requires a small portion of their awards to be used for outreach - and that's why Ithaca has a Sciencenter.  Those funds are not used for undergraduate education.  So, I think your statement is a bit of a non sequitur.

Interesting conversation.  To open up a different can of worms:

1. As long as the market is reasonably free (no monopoly, collusion or forced transactions) I don't feel that a seller using price discrimination to maximize their economic outcome is a bad thing, even if it is "simply" to maximize profits.  As long as the buyer is free to choose to purchase or not to purchase, why should the seller be limited in adjusting price?  If the buyer doesn't like it, they can walk away.  
2. In this case, I believe that the administration would make the case that even "sticker price" tuition does not cover the cost of a Cornell education.  A lot of this depends on how much of the research mission of the university should be paid for by students, but it is clear that there's an enormous gap between the university's expenses and tuition revenue - even if you look at gross tuition revenue before discounts are applied.  Kyle appears to be implying that the price discriminiation in effect here is a gouge on those who pay full price - instead, I would argue that there are probably a lot of very wealthy parents who could and perhaps should pick up an even larger proportion of the costs of running a world-class research university.

I think there are a lot of interesting important philosophical questions raised here, such as what is the value of a traditional "liberal" education, particularly in fields like Classics or English; what is the correct response of the University in balancing its research focus with its responsibility to provide an excellent education to its students (ie cramming 100-level classes full of students to be taught by an indifferent professor whose mind is much more focused on their next research paper); and what is the long-run economic value of a Cornell experience.

The good news is that there is tremendous transparency and access to information, so any purchaser of these education services (aka "student") who makes an ill informed decision really has only themselves to blame.

Roeszler!  3-1 Cornell. Brown scored from a scrum in front of the Cornell net at the top of the period.

Felt like a slow start to the period. 2-0 after one is great, but it feels like more of a negative reflection on Brown than a positive one on Cornell.

Al - a very good point and I am interested to read some post-game reporting with coach quotes to see of there's any more color there.

I had not been to Cheel before and found it to be a strange place. To encourage the Golden Knights of Clarkson University the fans cheer "go tech", which is not their name, and blow a train whistle.  It's befuddling - did the golden knight ride on the train?  Maybe he was a train conductor before he was a knight (I would hope so, as that would be a tough job to do all armored up).