Schafer should resign ...

[Jeff Hopkins '82]

For those of you new to the board, Facetimer is a well known troll.

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

[Trotsky]

Good Long Term Performance
Win the ECAC Regular Season 1 year out of 3
Win the ECAC Tournament 1 year out of 3
Make the Frozen Four 1 year out of 4 or 5

There is no stronger argument for keeping Schafer than that he has improved Cornell to the level that these are metrics for "Good Long Term Performance." :-) :-) :-)

[brealy_myers]

For 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.

[Towerroad]

Good Long Term Performance
Win the ECAC Regular Season 1 year out of 3
Win the ECAC Tournament 1 year out of 3
Make the Frozen Four 1 year out of 4 or 5

There is no stronger argument for keeping Schafer than that he has improved Cornell to the level that these are metrics for "Good Long Term Performance." :-) :-) :-)

C- Interesting argument but did not really answer the question. Is your position that because we are discussing what good long term performance is that we have met the long term performance goals? Come on, you can do better than that. Also you did not answer the second part. What is good performance in 11-12?

I suggest a rewrite.

[Robb]

Good Long Term Performance
Win the ECAC Regular Season 1 year out of 3
Win the ECAC Tournament 1 year out of 3
Make the Frozen Four 1 year out of 4 or 5

There is no stronger argument for keeping Schafer than that he has improved Cornell to the level that these are metrics for "Good Long Term Performance." :-) :-) :-)

C- Interesting argument but did not really answer the question. Is your position that because we are discussing what good long term performance is that we have met the long term performance goals? Come on, you can do better than that. Also you did not answer the second part. What is good performance in 11-12?

I suggest a rewrite.

I suggest a re-read.

There are only about 9-10 teams in the NCAA for whom those would be realistic long-term goals.  The fact that anyone might even consider us to be part of that elite group means that Schafer has been doing a darn good job.  Remember Schafer's goals from fall of 1996?  IIRC, they were: top 4 finish in the ECAC, advancing to Lake Placid, and beating Harvard.  Would anyone be satisfied with these goals today?  I don't think so - the program has grown, and we have Mike Schafer to thank for that.

[Towerroad]

Good Long Term Performance
Win the ECAC Regular Season 1 year out of 3
Win the ECAC Tournament 1 year out of 3
Make the Frozen Four 1 year out of 4 or 5

There is no stronger argument for keeping Schafer than that he has improved Cornell to the level that these are metrics for "Good Long Term Performance." :-) :-) :-)

C- Interesting argument but did not really answer the question. Is your position that because we are discussing what good long term performance is that we have met the long term performance goals? Come on, you can do better than that. Also you did not answer the second part. What is good performance in 11-12?

I suggest a rewrite.

I suggest a re-read.

There are only about 9-10 teams in the NCAA for whom those would be realistic long-term goals.  The fact that anyone might even consider us to be part of that elite group means that Schafer has been doing a darn good job.  Remember Schafer's goals from fall of 1996?  IIRC, they were: top 4 finish in the ECAC, advancing to Lake Placid, and beating Harvard.  Would anyone be satisfied with these goals today?  I don't think so - the program has grown, and we have Mike Schafer to thank for that.

Why is everyone on this board afraid of putting down on paper what good performance is. I said what I thought it was and I set the bar fairly high because I think the program has further to go. Feel free to disagree but for goodness sake take the time to turn your concept of good long term and next year performance into something concrete.

[Robb]

Why do you assume that we're "afraid" to put down our definition of good performance?  I just don't happen to think that my opinion is very interesting.

Since you seem to be interested after all:

11-12:
Top 2 finish
Play in ECAC championship game
NCAA bid

Long Term:
Play in ECAC Championship game every other year
NCAA bid 3 out of 5 years
NCAA first-round win 2 out of those 3 trips
One frozen four per 10 years

[jtwcornell91]

Good Long Term Performance
Win the ECAC Regular Season 1 year out of 3
Win the ECAC Tournament 1 year out of 3
Make the Frozen Four 1 year out of 4 or 5

There is no stronger argument for keeping Schafer than that he has improved Cornell to the level that these are metrics for "Good Long Term Performance." :-) :-) :-)

C- Interesting argument but did not really answer the question. Is your position that because we are discussing what good long term performance is that we have met the long term performance goals? Come on, you can do better than that. Also you did not answer the second part. What is good performance in 11-12?

I suggest a rewrite.

I suggest a re-read.

There are only about 9-10 teams in the NCAA for whom those would be realistic long-term goals.  The fact that anyone might even consider us to be part of that elite group means that Schafer has been doing a darn good job.  Remember Schafer's goals from fall of 1996?  IIRC, they were: top 4 finish in the ECAC, advancing to Lake Placid, and beating Harvard.  Would anyone be satisfied with these goals today?  I don't think so - the program has grown, and we have Mike Schafer to thank for that.

I'm pretty sure selling out Lynah was also one of the goals.  I recall them being selling out Lynah, beating Harvard, and getting home ice for the quarters (i.e., top 4).  He accomplished all three, which set us up for what followed.  (I remember thinking at the time that home ice in the quarters meant we were likely to go to Placid, at which point anything could happen.)

[Jim Hyla]

Good Long Term Performance
Win the ECAC Regular Season 1 year out of 3
Win the ECAC Tournament 1 year out of 3
Make the Frozen Four 1 year out of 4 or 5

There is no stronger argument for keeping Schafer than that he has improved Cornell to the level that these are metrics for "Good Long Term Performance." :-) :-) :-)

C- Interesting argument but did not really answer the question. Is your position that because we are discussing what good long term performance is that we have met the long term performance goals? Come on, you can do better than that. Also you did not answer the second part. What is good performance in 11-12?

I suggest a rewrite.

I suggest a re-read.

There are only about 9-10 teams in the NCAA for whom those would be realistic long-term goals.  The fact that anyone might even consider us to be part of that elite group means that Schafer has been doing a darn good job.  Remember Schafer's goals from fall of 1996?  IIRC, they were: top 4 finish in the ECAC, advancing to Lake Placid, and beating Harvard.  Would anyone be satisfied with these goals today?  I don't think so - the program has grown, and we have Mike Schafer to thank for that.

Why is everyone on this board afraid of putting down on paper what good performance is. I said what I thought it was. Feel free to disagree but for goodness sake take the time to turn your concept of good long term and next year performance into something concrete.

First, FYP. I didn't want Robb to get credit for your post.

Second, 2 days ago on another thread you posted:

Why don't we leave the squabbling for the post season. Anymore would be bad mojo.

I can agree with that. So why are we continuing the argument here. (Yes, I know it's got a different twist, but...) So as long as we are continuing to talk, or write, I can chip in. (Heaven knows no one has ever accused me of not entering into an argument.)

In regards to your goals, I can now understand why you're unhappy. But I'm sorry to say, you will probably always be unhappy with Cornell hockey, because those goals will never be met. At least I can say, not in my lifetime; and although I'm old, I expect to be watching for many more years. Only one current ECAC school has ever attained those goals, and Heavens to Murgatroyd, (I think you can spell that with a y or an i?) it was us. Harvard has come close, but I don't think anyone would say let's change coaches. Harkness did that back in 66-70. Sadly, he died and no one has ever found a replacement.

My goal is to just over time be a better team than any other ECAC school, thus giving me, and you (See how easy it is to be inclusive.:-}) the opportunity to cheer as hard and as long as we possibly can. I think if you look at my prior post on the other anti-Schafer thread, you'll see that of all the current ECAC coaches, Schafer has done the best toward my goal. (Past performance is not predictive of future performance, or whatever the financial companies always say.) I'm happy.

[Robb]

I'm pretty sure selling out Lynah was also one of the goals.  I recall them being selling out Lynah, beating Harvard, and getting home ice for the quarters (i.e., top 4).  He accomplished all three, which set us up for what followed.  (I remember thinking at the time that home ice in the quarters meant we were likely to go to Placid, at which point anything could happen.)

Ah, yes - you are correct.  Advancing to Placid didn't seem quite right.  Thanks for the reminder.

[Trotsky]

Good Long Term Performance
Win the ECAC Regular Season 1 year out of 3
Win the ECAC Tournament 1 year out of 3
Make the Frozen Four 1 year out of 4 or 5

There is no stronger argument for keeping Schafer than that he has improved Cornell to the level that these are metrics for "Good Long Term Performance." :-) :-) :-)

C- Interesting argument but did not really answer the question. Is your position that because we are discussing what good long term performance is that we have met the long term performance goals? Come on, you can do better than that. Also you did not answer the second part. What is good performance in 11-12?

I suggest a rewrite.

Sure, kid.  What you suggest is noted and logged.

[Towerroad]

Good Long Term Performance
Win the ECAC Regular Season 1 year out of 3
Win the ECAC Tournament 1 year out of 3
Make the Frozen Four 1 year out of 4 or 5

There is no stronger argument for keeping Schafer than that he has improved Cornell to the level that these are metrics for "Good Long Term Performance." :-) :-) :-)

C- Interesting argument but did not really answer the question. Is your position that because we are discussing what good long term performance is that we have met the long term performance goals? Come on, you can do better than that. Also you did not answer the second part. What is good performance in 11-12?

I suggest a rewrite.

Sure, kid.  What you suggest is noted and logged.

I wait with baited breath.

[Towerroad]

Good Long Term Performance
Win the ECAC Regular Season 1 year out of 3
Win the ECAC Tournament 1 year out of 3
Make the Frozen Four 1 year out of 4 or 5

There is no stronger argument for keeping Schafer than that he has improved Cornell to the level that these are metrics for "Good Long Term Performance." :-) :-) :-)

C- Interesting argument but did not really answer the question. Is your position that because we are discussing what good long term performance is that we have met the long term performance goals? Come on, you can do better than that. Also you did not answer the second part. What is good performance in 11-12?

I suggest a rewrite.

I suggest a re-read.

There are only about 9-10 teams in the NCAA for whom those would be realistic long-term goals.  The fact that anyone might even consider us to be part of that elite group means that Schafer has been doing a darn good job.  Remember Schafer's goals from fall of 1996?  IIRC, they were: top 4 finish in the ECAC, advancing to Lake Placid, and beating Harvard.  Would anyone be satisfied with these goals today?  I don't think so - the program has grown, and we have Mike Schafer to thank for that.

Why is everyone on this board afraid of putting down on paper what good performance is. I said what I thought it was. Feel free to disagree but for goodness sake take the time to turn your concept of good long term and next year performance into something concrete.

First, FYP. I didn't want Robb to get credit for your post.

Second, 2 days ago on another thread you posted:

Why don't we leave the squabbling for the post season. Anymore would be bad mojo.

I can agree with that. So why are we continuing the argument here. (Yes, I know it's got a different twist, but...) So as long as we are continuing to talk, or write, I can chip in. (Heaven knows no one has ever accused me of not entering into an argument.)

In regards to your goals, I can now understand why you're unhappy. But I'm sorry to say, you will probably always be unhappy with Cornell hockey, because those goals will never be met. At least I can say, not in my lifetime; and although I'm old, I expect to be watching for many more years. Only one current ECAC school has ever attained those goals, and Heavens to Murgatroyd, (I think you can spell that with a y or an i?) it was us. Harvard has come close, but I don't think anyone would say let's change coaches. Harkness did that back in 66-70. Sadly, he died and no one has ever found a replacement.

My goal is to just over time be a better team than any other ECAC school, thus giving me, and you (See how easy it is to be inclusive.:-}) the opportunity to cheer as hard and as long as we possibly can. I think if you look at my prior post on the other anti-Schafer thread, you'll see that of all the current ECAC coaches, Schafer has done the best toward my goal. (Past performance is not predictive of future performance, or whatever the financial companies always say.) I'm happy.

I think that talking about performance goals and metrics is a very different discussion than the other. Yes, I did set my sights high. I would like to see the Red regarded as perennial top teams simliar to BC, BU, Denver, ND, Mn, Mi etc. I the metrics I proposed were consistent with that desire.

A more interesting discussion might be how much of our soul would we have to sell to get there and is it worth the price. That might lead me to readjust my performance expectations. Also, I wanted to put a stake in the ground and see what the reaction would be. Consider it a seed value for an iterative solution.

[ajh258]

With regards to Jim's comments:

Although Schafer has taken us from mediocre/pathetic to a consistent top-performing team within the ECAC, I think the next logical step is to reach further and become a top-10 NCAA team. Just like Towerroad said:

I would like to see the Red regarded as perennial top teams simliar to BC, BU, Denver, ND, Mn, Mi etc.

I know this would be an entire other discussion on top of the coaching issue, but I do share similar goals and that's the basis of my opinions. If all stays the same, we'll just keep grinding around our current position and that might be fine for some.

However, all other factors cet. par. (taking into consideration the people we're able to recruit and the Ivy League's rules), it's definitely possible for us to reach that top-10 NCAA goal year after year, considering the extraordinary amount of support and funding the team gets from various sources. No one doubts that we have one of the best hockey fan bases around the country, so why not put that into good use to keep improving our team when we haven't reached our full potential?

[Jim Hyla]

With regards to Jim's comments:

Although Schafer has taken us from mediocre/pathetic to a consistent top-performing team within the ECAC, I think the next logical step is to reach further and become a top-10 NCAA team. Just like Towerroad said:

I would like to see the Red regarded as perennial top teams simliar to BC, BU, Denver, ND, Mn, Mi etc.

I know this would be an entire other discussion on top of the coaching issue, but I do share similar goals and that's the basis of my opinions. If all stays the same, we'll just keep grinding around our current position and that might be fine for some.

However, all other factors cet. par. (taking into consideration the people we're able to recruit and the Ivy League's rules), it's definitely possible for us to reach that top-10 NCAA goal year after year, considering the extraordinary amount of support and funding the team gets from various sources. No one doubts that we have one of the best hockey fan bases around the country, so why not put that into good use to keep improving our team when we haven't reached our full potential?

As far as can see it, fans can help in 2 ways. Well, really 3, if you consider not throwing stuff on the ice being a help.:-D My 2 ways are cheering support and financial support. There are other things, such as names of prospective recruits, but I don't think any of us would do more than an occasion with that. Maybe there are others that I'm not thinking of right now?

Anyway, we all cheer, and many travel to a number of away games to support. I hope that all of you do that to the best of your ability. I also hope that all of you contribute, both to the hockey program and your other Cornell interests. I'd venture to say that the other institutions mentioned probably get a lot more financial support from their Athletic Department than does Cornell. Does anyone out there know the facts?

Finally, while I'm talking about finances, I'd like to suggest to all posters that they click on the PayPal Donate button on the right and give Age a donation. Without his work none of this would be happening. At least I wouldn't be going over to USCHO like I am here. Shucks, maybe that would be a good thing?::bang::